Monday, April 27, 2015

Yatsenyuk says: "Ukrainian language to become the Official Language of the #EU"

Ukrainian become the official language of the European Union, convinced Yatsenyuk

The situation in Ukraine. Апрель 2015 (799)
 (Updated: 943435417310
President of Ukraine Poroshenko said that he shared the optimism premiere, but believes that the English and French, in turn, will be the working languages ​​of the Ukrainian government.
MOSCOW, April 27 - RIA Novosti . Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said during the plenary session of the Ukraine - EU Summit that the Ukrainian language can become an official language of the European Union, reports .
"I am convinced that there is a prospect and a very significant that the Ukrainian language will be the official language of the European Union, and for that we have gathered," - he said.
President Poroshenko said that he shared the optimism of the prime minister, but hopes that the English and French will be the working languages ​​of the Ukrainian government, "and all Ukrainian officials will speak English and French, is not worse than the Ukrainian."
Also speaking at the summit, Poroshenko urged the EU to recognize the right of Ukraine to EU membership ", subject to all the necessary criteria."
Summit EU - Ukraine held on April 27 in Kiev.

РИА Новости

Ukraine Men Who Refuse to Be Cannon Fodder for the Junta in the East

Ukraine Men Who Refuse to Be Cannon Fodder for the Junta in the East

"We were fighting for autonomy, for the right to live and work in our own regions, when the army came, and just bombarded us for two months in a row,” Andrey said. “And now I’m supposed to go and fight for them? I don’t think so.”

KIEV, Ukraine — As the country’s eastern conflict drags into a second year, Ukraine’s military leaders are trying to learn from past mistakes. They are trying to be better trained and prepared, because no one knows when the warm weather might push this frozen conflict with pro-Russian separatists into all-out war again. And they are calling up the able-bodied men of Ukraine in droves to turn the military that had only 6,000 battle-ready troops before the start of this conflict into a standing force a quarter-million strong.

But not everyone is heeding the call to arms.

“I decided a long time ago that I wouldn’t respond to the order,” said Igor, a 25-year-old worker with a nongovernmental organization within Kiev, who received a draft summons in February. “I am not at all interested in participating in such a conflict. They should have been acting much more effectively to have fewer victims — I don’t want to end up on the victim list myself.”

The prospective soldiers in this article spoke on the condition that their last names be withheld because of the risk of penalties if they were to be identified as draft dodgers.

Igor is, by most measures, a shoo-in for the service. He’s a reserve officer, a radio specialist, and he participated in the 2013-2014 protests on Kiev’s Independence Square. But between one-third and one-half of the more than 6,000 deaths in the Ukrainian conflict were in the military, and Igor cites systemic problems — such as draft commanders who ask for bribes, and commanders, including the president, who maintain Russian business ties while asking soldiers to die for Ukraine — as reasons why he and many others cannot bring themselves to serve.

“We do have some problems in the mobilization,” acknowledged military spokesman Vladislav Seleznev, when asked about cases like Igor’s. “That’s why we are trying to strike a balance: From one side, the government provides benefits to those defending the country; from the other, there are very harsh criminal penalties for draft dodgers.”

Rank-and-file soldiers can make upwards of $200 a month, with commanders eligible for far more. But those who shirk the call to duty — or go AWOL, as about 13,000 have — risk fines and years of jail time. In one recent case, a journalist speaking out publicly against the draft was charged with treason.

But that isn't enough to scare many potential draftees from dodging. “I would rather sit in prison for three years — and be fed and secure — than serve,” said Andrey, 26, a metal plant worker who was drafted in March. “After a whole year of this government, we still have to work for two days to buy a loaf of bread. I don’t want to go fight for that kind of government.”

Andrey is from Slovyansk, an eastern Ukrainian city that came under heavy assault last summer, with troops eventually wresting the city from pro-Russian rebels. But the local population’s sympathies are still divided, and of the approximately 40 people Andrey knows who recently received draft orders, he says only one is actually responding. “We were fighting for autonomy, for the right to live and work in our own region. When the army came, they just bombarded us for two months in a row,” Andrey said. “And now I’m supposed to go and fight for them? I don’t think so.”

Though penalties for draft dodging are steep, the process is fairly straightforward. Summons are sent to the city where one is registered — normally a birthplace or place of work. But if one has moved or has a job that is not officially registered, it is easy to hide in plain sight, as Andrey and Igor are doing.

The military says it has completed about three-quarters of the planned mobilization, now in its fifth wave, with a sixth already proposed. Response rates vary widely across the country, however: Igor’s home region of Kharkiv, for example, has the most abysmal turnout, with only about 17 percent of those receiving draft orders responding. Meanwhile Lviv, in the far west, reportedly boasts the highest response rate, with near full turnout.

But even with the majority of draftees turning up for medical checks, the military is worried. Rotating soldiers off the battlefield, they expect only 15-20 percent to return voluntarily. New soldiers get only 26 days of general training, plus a week or two to practice their specialization. So without a steady stream of recruits, they worry that the quality of soldiers could drop. Only 1 in 8 troops is a volunteer, not nearly enough to make up the recruitment gap.

“The more people that will respond to the mobilization, the better chance we have of sending the most prepared, motivated and best soldiers to the ATO zone,” Seleznev said, referring to the combat zone. “It’s not right that some go to defend the motherland and others hide in bushes, living their lives and not defending the country.”

But military experts say the recruitment system suffers most from bad management; the legacy of years of post-Soviet decimation.

“We don’t understand what we are fighting for, and the government does not inform people about the goals of this war,” said Aleksey Arestovich, a military expert based in Kiev, who added that after a year of hostilities, the conflict is still not officially a “war.” Despite the databases the administration is building of soldiers, their skills and their defections, Arestovich pointed out that specialists are often ignored in favor of funneling more people to the front line, and families of slain soldiers often must fight to get their promised benefits.

As the Interior Ministry starts to prosecute no-shows, human rights advocates are also speaking in defense of the dodgers. “We can’t win only by the numbers, we have to win by the quality of our soldiers,” said Oleksandra Matviychuk of the Center for Civil Rights in Kiev, arguing that the military should offer more draftees noncombat roles. “I don’t believe people forced to be in the army can effectively defend the population.”

Maxim, 23, who was drafted in the fall, is a Seventh-day Adventist, and thus, a pacifist. But he is also a competitive athletic fighter, which he fears will make a military review board skeptical of his religious convictions.

More pressingly though, Maxim doesn’t want to go to war because his wife is five months pregnant with their first child. If he has to, he said, he would try to get a Romanian passport, for which he is eligible as a resident of a border town. “You know, I would go serve as something like a medical worker,” Maxim said. “But I don’t have that education. And after the physical exam, I know where they would send me — straight to the infantry.”

#MH17: How the Western Media Failed the Victims and Their Families

MH17: How the Western Media Failed the Victims and Their Families

Scathing indictment of the mainstream media’s shameful laziness and willful ignorance of facts regarding the MH17 tragedy

James O'Neill
(New Eastern Outlook)

Western 'reporting' on MH17 rotten to the core

This article originally appeared at New Eastern Outlook

In examining the evidence relating to the shooting down of Flight MH17 over the eastern Ukraine in July 2014 it is appropriate to approach the task as one would a prosecution of those responsible.

First, one has to establish the facts as they can be established to the requisite standard of proof. Secondly, discard the highly improbable, impossible, or just plain speculation.

One may then reach a logical conclusion based on the established facts, or at least a working hypothesis that further facts will either confirm or reject. In doing so it is necessary to maintain a healthy skepticism about claims made by obviously interested parties. Apart from an agenda that may have little to do with establishing the truth, the experience thus far suggests that such parties rely upon assertions rather than evidence.

In reporting those assertions and disregarding important evidential developments it is clear that the western mainstream media have failed in several important respects. Ever since the plane was destroyed on 17 July 2014 with the loss of all on board, the media have subjected their readers to a barrage of allegations, half-truths, innuendo and speculation, almost none of which has a proper evidential basis.

Instead of asking what should be the obvious questions and seeking answers, the media have in effect reached a conclusion at the outset and then sought to cherry pick evidence as it emerged, almost universally ignoring that which did not fit their original allegations which have been treated as a conclusion not to be questioned.

This is of course the antithesis of the procedure for a proper inquiry. Given the geopolitical context of the MH17 disaster, a reasonable starting point would be to note that the conclusion reached by the media at the outset and maintained thereafter reflects an opinion and an agenda toward Russia and its President more than it does a genuine wish to determine the evidence and hold those responsible accountable.

What is the evidence that can be relied upon as establishing a factual basis? There is at this stage (April 2015) quite a significant amount, although one would have trouble determining that from the mainstream media coverage.

First we have the so-called black boxes, being the voice and flight data recorders. These boxes were recovered from the scene by soldiers of the militias engaged in a civil war between residents of two Russian speaking eastern provinces in Ukraine’s south east who had voted for independence from the Kiev government installed in an American financed and organized coup in February 2014, and soldiers of the Kiev military, aided by militia groups controlled by pro-Kiev oligarchs. This latter group have a heavily neo-Nazi component, a relevant fact concealed by the mainstream media.

Those black boxes were in turn handed over to the British for analysis. In the context of this inquiry it would be unwise to assume that all the relevant data have been released. I will confine myself to noting only those data that have been corroborated from other sources.

On 9 September 2014 the preliminary report of the accident investigation headed by the Dutch released some of the information from those boxes. The Dutch are conducting the inquiry, apparently on the basis that the flight originated from Amsterdam and the largest group of victims were Dutch citizens. Malaysia, the owners of the plane, was excluded from leading the inquiry for reasons set out below. The Ukraine, where the plane came down, should have been the logical place for the investigation but was also excluded, but in a different manner to the Malaysians. I will return to this issue below.

The only information released in their report confirmed that the pilots had no prior warning of the catastrophe that was about to befall them. There is only very limited data as to the contact between the aircraft and Kiev air traffic control, and Rostov air traffic control (the next way point on the flight path). There are unsubstantiated reports that officers of the Ukrainian security services seized the Kiev air traffic control data immediately after the plane crashed. While that has not been confirmed it is established that no details of the conversations have been released.

We do not therefore know the reasons for the plane’s flight path was diverted while it was in Polish air space in a manner that took it directly over a war zone. Not only have the relevant recordings not been released, the personnel involved have not been interviewed by the investigators. This is a fact that might lead to a negative inference being drawn, but it is not of itself determinative of very much.

The flight data recorder evidence does confirm at least one incontrovertible fact: that the devastation of the plane was caused by externally sourced objects. Of itself, that does not add much to the narrative other than excluding sources specific to the plane such as a bomb or structural failure.

The more important questions are what were those objects; from where did they originate; and who was responsible for them being fired? A subsidiary question is whether the objects were fired with the intention of downing the aircraft, or was it a case of accident or mistake?

The second sources of verifiable facts are satellite and radar imagery. This area of information points to a number of important circumstances that not only shed light on how the disaster may have occurred, but also confirm the proposition that the western media have failed in some very basic responsibilities.

Immediately after the crash on 17 July 2014 the western media immediately blamed Russia in general and President Putin in particular. This was before anything remotely approaching the gathering of evidence had occurred. In the absence of any admissions such a stance was at the very least premature.

The suspicion that this instant apportioning of blame on Russia was not coincidental was reinforced by the release of two pieces of “evidence” by the Ukrainian authorities. This “evidence” consisted of recorded conversations between members of the pro-independence militias; and a picture of a BUK missile battery being transported across the border into Russia.

Listen to the US Officials lay it all out hours after the Incident and Think!

The intercepted conversations were of two militia officers discussing the successful shooting down of a plane. It was rapidly established however, that the conversations were a pastiche of different conversations, and not only referred to the shooting down of a Ukrainian military aircraft, had actually been recorded in days prior to 17 July 2014. This demolition of what had been presented as strong evidence of Russian supported militias was not reported in the mainstream media.

Similarly, the photograph purporting to show a BUK missile battery being transported across the border into Russia was also quickly proven to be actually taken in a Ukrainian town and was a Ukrainian military BUK battery. Again, this fact was never reported.

Again, this presentation of fake evidence is not determinative of the issues, but it does raise legitimate suspicions about the authenticity of the investigation, and the motives of, in this case, the Ukrainian government.

The cover-up begins minutes after the Incident, but are discovered quickly

Prior to the G20 meeting in Brisbane in November 2014 the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott infamously promised to “shirt-front” Mr Putin over Russian “responsibility” for MH17’s shooting down. The “shirt fronting” never occurred, but the threat helped to feed a generally ignorant media frenzy that never allowed the facts to impede the flow of misinformation.

In the face of this orchestrated media barrage the Russians organized a media conference on 23 July 2014. At this conference, to which all major media organizations were invited, the Russians presented their radar and satellite data for the period leading up to the shooting down of MH17.

A number of important facts emerged from this presentation, although again one would be hard put to find it in the western mainstream media. The first was that the Russian radar identified a military aircraft, most likely a SU25 of the Ukrainian air force, in close proximity to MH17. The main response to this information by the media was a claim that the SU25 was incapable of operating at the height MH17 was flying. This was clearly misinformation as the operating capacity of the SU25 is readily available from military reference sources. Again, the question is raised as to why false information should be disseminated, and why did the mainstream media not disclose that fact. An explanation for the military aircraft’s presence in a civilian flight path has not been forthcoming.

The second fact of significance to emerge from the Russian presentation was that at the time of the shoot down an American satellite was directly overhead. The Russians invited the Americans to release their satellite data, which may well be definitive as to many aspects as to the sequence of events. To date the Americans have refused to do so, rather bizarrely referring to matters on social media as the basis for their campaign of demonizing Mr Putin.

Sufficient is known about the capacity of spy satellites to confidently conclude that their data would be both relevant and instructive. The failure to produce this evidence publicly again invites a negative inference being drawn. The interim Dutch report was silent on the point of either the Russian or the American satellite and radar evidence.

Also at the time of the shoot down American warships were engaged in exercises in the Black Sea. They also have sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment that potentially has information about the sequence of events surrounding the shoot down. Again, nothing has been disclosed to the inquiry.

Looked at from a different angle, given the blame being apportioned to Russia and/or Russian supported separatists, if the Americans in fact had satellite proof of a ground to air missile being fired (the alleged culprit being a BUK ground to air missile) it is a reasonable assumption that the data would have been released.

There are a number of factors that militate against the cause of the crash being a BUK missile. It is for example, a sophisticated weapon. It is known to be in the possession of the Ukrainian military. Even if the separatists had seized one, there is no evidence that they had the training to be able to operate it.

Even if the separatists had the requisite personnel and expertise, there are further factors that militate against the culprit being a BUK missile. The first is that it is a very large and noisy weapon; when fired there is a powerful flash at the launch site; and that it leaves a distinct vapour trail lasting several minutes after it has been fired. There is no plausible evidence of such a weapon being either seen or heard.

This video was quickly removed for obvious reasons it contested official lies

The second factor is that the BUK is designed to explode 50 to 100 metres from the target causing an aerial shockwave, which results in high-speed fragment distribution. Those fragments are capable of breaking the fuselage of a Boeing 777, but the pattern of destruction of MH17 is not consistent with being damaged by a BUK missile. The damage pattern of multiple bullet holes is also inconsistent with a BUK missile.

Thirdly, had the plane been damaged by a BUK missile it is likely that the pilots would have been able to broadcast the fact they had been damaged. No such broadcasts were made according to the data released by the Dutch investigation. The evidence does show however, that the pilot’s seats were damaged by bullet penetration. The most plausible explanation for the failure of the pilots to radio the fact that they had been attacked is that the bullets fired into the cockpit area instantly killed them. Even if the bullets, which is unlikely, did not hit them the penetration of the cabin would have cause instant depressurization, which would also have killed the pilots.

The plane would have continued for a period in automatic flight mode. The missile would then have depressurized the whole cabin causing the plane to go into a tailspin. The g-forces thus created would have caused the breakup of the plane at high altitude. This accounts for the widespread nature of debris.

The fourth factor is that nobody has been able to suggest a plausible motive why the Russians or the Russian supported separatists would wish to bring down a civilian airliner from a country and carrying passengers entirely unrelated to the ongoing conflict. The opprobrium attached to such an act carries no benefit for the Russians or the separatists. On the other hand being able to blame the Russians has considerable benefits for the Kiev regime.

A fifth factor that has progressively emerged and upon which most western media is silent, is the claim that the fuselage, especially the cockpit area, was riddled with what appeared to be bullet holes consistent with 30mm cannon fire. Thirty-millimeter cannons are part of an SU25’s armaments.

The first suggestion to this effect came from a Canadian OSCE observer who inspected the wreckage in situ. Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian of Ukrainian origin, gave an interview on Canadian television on 29 July 2014. He described his preliminary conclusion that the observed damage to the cockpit area of the plane was consistent with 30mm cannon fire. No word of that interview or Mr Bociurkiw’s conclusions has been published in the Australian mainstream media.

A German former pilot, Pater Haisenko, has put forward some further confirmation of that cause of damage to MH17. Considerable caution should be exercised about Mr Haisenko’s opinion, as he had to work solely from photographs of the wreckage. This is not to question Mr Haisenko’s sincerity, but that it is possible to provide a more definitive explanation than an examination, however expertly, of photographs. I will return to this below.

There have been at least two further developments on this issue. In the first of these the Russian military conducted an experiment, firing 30mm shells into an old aircraft. The pattern of damage observed was markedly similar to the damage on MH17. A documentary on these experiments is available on Russian websites, although no report of the results has appeared in western mainstream media.

Secondly, in March 2015 Dutch officials allowed foreign investigators to inspect the damaged MH17 which was slowly being reconstructed in a hangar in the Netherlands. Military experts who saw the damage confirmed the earlier reports that the damage in the cockpit area was consistent with cannon fire. The pattern of damage was typical with both entry and exit holes. Again, none of this has been reported on the mainstream media.

The Dutch preliminary report of September 2014 described the damage as being consistent with the aircraft being hit by a large number of high velocity objects. These were undefined and the phrase was not elaborated upon. This did not prevent the Australian Prime Minister declaring that the Dutch interim report “confirmed” that the plane had been shot down by a BUK missile. That the report said no such thing again escaped the attention of the media who reported the Prime Minister’s comments without question.

For the reasons noted above, “high velocity objects” is inconsistent with a BUK missile, but entirely consistent with both 30mm cannon fire and an air to air missile.

The issue of what hit the plane from outside is one that is capable of definitive resolution. Forensic examination of the damaged fuselage would immediately reveal what struck the aircraft. All objects have a distinct chemical signature, traces of which are ascertainable from the wreckage. That evidence may be the single most important element of a proper investigation. No results were disclosed in the Dutch interim report. The final report is expected later this year and that is an aspect that will be closely anticipated.

If the forensic examination does confirm what is widely suspected, that the destruction of MH17 was caused by a combination of cannon fire and an air to air missile, then that would radically affect the entire premises upon which the mainstream reporting has been predicated.

The technical ability to conduct such an examination is not in doubt. Nine months after the disaster it is probable that such an examination has been completed. The political will to release the forensic data is a different matter, for two reasons.

If the results of the forensic examination confirmed that it was a BUK missile, that would tentatively support the “Russia and/or Russian supported separatists did it” theme so assiduously promoted by the western media, although it would far short of proof that either party had actually done it. Who actually fired such a missile is not as amenable to forensic proof, although proof seems the least of the considerations of the mainstream media to date.

The second reason is far more likely. If the results showed that it was in fact an air to air missile then the responsibility for the tragedy then shifts squarely onto the Ukrainian government. No reasonable alternative hypothesis is possible.

The Dutch in that case would almost certainly not publish the results because an agreement between Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia was entered into on 8 August 2014. This agreement provides that the results of the Dutch investigation will not be published unless all four governments agree. This effectively gives a veto to the prime suspect, Ukraine, which must be unprecedented for a major criminal investigation.

Malaysia, which as the owner of the plane should have been a party to any agreement governing the investigation. They refused to sign the 8 August 2014 agreement. It has since been reported in the Malaysian press that Malaysia did join the investigation in December 2014. Curiously however, the Malaysians have not disclosed either the reasons for their initial refusal, nor the reasons for apparently changing their mind in December 2014.

The fact of the 8 August 2014 agreement has not been published in the Australian mainstream media. The terms of the agreement have thus far resisted Freedom of Information Act endeavours in Australia and the Netherlands for their release. Both governments cite national security issues, although how that is relevant is unclear.

The alternative media remains rife with speculation and claims of dubious veracity. Many undoubtedly have a lot of merit. It is significant however, that reporting of the ongoing investigation and publication of serious analyses is confined to the alternative media. It is a role that the mainstream should be performing but manifestly are not. The problem is particularly acute in Australia where there is a concentration of media ownership in so few hands.

On 22 July 2014 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2166 (2014), one of whose co-sponsors was Australia. The resolution reads in part:

“Stressing the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with civil aviation guidelines.”

On the available evidence thus far it is not possible to conclude that the investigation is “full”, “thorough” or “independent”. A number of factors militate against any confidence in the integrity of the investigation. These include but are not limited to:

The refusal of the Americans and the Ukrainians in particular to fully disclose relevant information;

The secrecy about releasing the results of the investigation and even the fact that such an agreement exists;

The veto power accorded the prime suspect; and

The apparent determination of many countries to use the tragedy to advance a geopolitical agenda that seeks to undermine Russian society and government.

The victims, and their families, deserve better.


Below is a selection of key articles which dispels the media lies and official government fabrications to the effect that the Donbass militia supported by Moscow was behind the attack on Malaysian airlines MH17.

Analysis of the Reasons for the Crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17: Report of the Russian Union of EngineersBy Ivan A. Andrievskii, November 06, 2014

Malaysian Flight MH17 Crash Analysis, by The Russian Union of Engineers By Global Research News, September 21,
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air MissileBy Eric Zuesse, November 05, 2014

Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine WarzoneBy Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 21, 2014

Was Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior behind the Downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 18, 2014
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 Downed Over Warzone Ukraine. Who Was Behind It? Cui Bono? By Tony Cartalucci, July 17, 2014

At no juncture during the Ukrainian crisis could the downing of flight MH17 have been more convenient for NATO and its proxy regime in Kiev. Kiev’s forces in eastern Ukraine are being repealed. NATO’s attempts to bait Russia into moving into Ukrainian territory have failed.

Dutch MH17 Investigation Omits US “Intel”. Fabrications and Omissions Supportive of US-NATO Agenda Directed against Russia By Tony Cartalucci, September 19, 2014

MH17 Verdict: Real Evidence Points to US-Kiev Cover-up of Failed “False Flag” By 21st Century Wire, September 14, 201

Report by Dutch Investigators of MH17 Crash Dispels Notion about Missile Attack. Michel Chossudovsky By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2014

Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17 By Global Research News, July 18, 2014

Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by “A Large Number of High Energy Objects”, Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a “Russian Missile” By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Julie Lévesque, September 09, 2014

“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 09, 2014

MH17 Preliminary Report: Plane Hit by “Large Number of High-Energy Objects”By Ria Novosti, September 09, 2014

Camouflage and Coverup: The Dutch Commission Report on the Malaysian MH17 Crash is “Not Worth the Paper it’s Written On”By Peter Haisenko, September 11, 2014

Sunday, April 26, 2015

"May 9 Memorial Mariupol" we have not forgotten you! Mariupol is still #NewRussia!

"May 9 Memorial Mariupol" we have not forgotten you! Mariupol is still #NewRussia!

Dear brothers and sisters, let us honor the memory of those who lost their lives in Mariupol, May 9 from the bloody hands of fascist power!

US diplomat: Ukraine should recognize the loss of the Crimea

US diplomat: Ukraine should recognize the loss of the Crimea
April 26, 2015

Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul gave a very detailed interview to "Ukrainian Pravda". And despite the obvious bias of this publication, the diplomat tried at least between the lines to convey to the Ukrainian real attitude of Washington to the conflict in the country.

The media and political and academic community in Ukraine is trying to convince the public the idea that the collective West fully and unconditionally support the current regime in Kiev and all his actions. That friends from Washington and Brussels will defend Ukraine until recently the Americans and Europeans. However, former US Ambassador Michael McFaul made it clear that the attitude towards Kiev and its current policy in the West is very controversial. Yes, today McFaul is neither US Secretary of State, or even a senator, however, given its proximity to Obama, the former ambassador words can be regarded as a kind of message from the White House Ukrainian regime. And requests to behave decently.

So, Michael McFaul clearly explained what the Ukrainians in Ukraine will steps to exacerbate the situation. For example, the supply of US weapons, which the Ukrainian authorities to achieve with perseverance worthy of a better cause. "Some people in the White House believe that if it happens, will be escalated. They believe that if the supply of weapons, and then there will be an answer Putin ... and who will be sent to his answer? Not for us. On you. So if you think that the military needs such help, my answer is - we must help those who are willing to get an answer Putin. " Very ambiguous statement, which shows that the Ukrainians Kiev have to understand all the consequences of their actions and be ready to account for their steps.That if Ukraine will continue to hold political and military provocations, then it will have to save herself.

However, current US administration, according to McFaul, will be ready to go to the exacerbation only if there is a provocation from Putin, if the peace process will be derailed Russia. Moreover, the US is not going to beat Ukraine Crimea. "I just do not want people to overestimate the ability of the West. A military operation we do not go, obviously. Americans are not willing to fight for the Crimea ... We must be realistic in this regard. Sometimes I feel that people want more from Americans than myself "- says Ukrainian journalist Michael McFaul. The perfect outlet for Kiev in this situation would be to recognize the loss of the Crimea in exchange for some concessions from Russia, but this decision has yet realistic option does not match any of the political situation, much more of the priorities of the current Ukrainian society.

West wants from Kiev does not relapse, and reforms. "I believe many of my friends in the White House so believe that the most important question here - whether successful reform and democratization in Ukraine. This is the most important thing. And everything else is less important - what Putin will do, and so on, "- said McFaul. And while that friends in the White House are not satisfied with any reform or democracy. Probably will not be satisfied as measures to de-Russification of the country, and more precisely the methods to achieve this goal, which threaten to further split in Ukrainian society.

Theoretically, the United States need not just surviving Ukraine - they need a successful Ukraine. A State which can demonstrate the former Soviet space benefits from the exit of the Russian sphere of influence. "For Putin unsuccessful reforms - that's what he expects that he wants to show the world -" I was right. " For him, this is the main problem. And so for us the most important task - to show that Putin is not right, "- said McFaul. However, in practice, "to show that Putin is not right" will not be easy. George W. Bush failed to implement this strategy with a much more favorable conditions in Georgia and Ukraine after the first of the Maidan (when the country was not in a loosening of the state as it is now). In the meantime, all the events in Ukraine - Garbage lustration industrial collapse, glorification of Nazi collaborators - show former Soviet Union, Putin right after all.

The Russian president, by the way, also became a topic of discussion. "Putin still people of the Soviet Union. He believes that if something is a plus for America, it means minus for Russia ", - says Michael McFaul. - Putin is the theory that America wants to destroy Russia and all countries that are considered to be our enemies, that we organize the revolution everywhere.As if people do nothing - neither in Egypt nor in Ukraine or Russia. He believes that all makes the CIA. " And partly it is right - though not so much in relation to Putin (who still is a pragmatist), but in relation to the Russian political and academic elite. Indeed the majority of armchair political scientists and journalists prevailing view that the US is the initiator of various processes in the world. And they are respectively broadcast these ideas to the masses, which leads to serious underestimation of Russian society of internal problems that have arisen in the territory of Ukraine the same, as well as in Georgia and even Armenia. Spend so much effort to find and explain the "hands of the State Department," in Russia do not want or can not accept that in the occurrence of these processes have wine and Russia. And while in Moscow did not realize the chances of the emergence of new Maidan new post-Soviet countries will continue to exist.

Source publication

Monday, April 20, 2015

Ukraine's EU Agreement Calls for them to Compensate Poles, Including Lviv Real Estate...

Ukraine's EU Agreement Calls for them to Compensate Poles, Including Lviv Real Estate...

Medvedchuk: for EU residents of Lviv will have to return the property to the Poles after the ratification of the Association Agreement with the EU, Ukraine should respect the principles of the EU, and therefore, it is necessary to develop a legal and legitimate way to obtain compensation, including real estate. 

The Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU can have unexpected consequences for the inhabitants of Western Ukraine, the leader of Ukrainian public movement "Ukrainian choice" Viktor Medvedchuk. In the Polish city of Lublin established the organization, which will deal with the return of property or compensation for the Poles who lived in western Ukraine, or their heirs. 

After the ratification of the agreement, Ukraine will have to respect the principles of the EU, and therefore, it is necessary to develop a legal and legitimate way to pay a compensation, including real estate. The leader of the "Ukrainian choice" notes that "most of the restitution may be affected Lviv residents, settled in the historic center of the city after" Soviet occupation. 

"He recalls that in 1938, on the eve of the inclusion of Lvov in the Soviet Union, 63.5% of the population were Poles, and only 7.8% - Ukrainians. "So that the results of European integration Ukrainians may soon feel the. And above all - Lvov, who may have serious problems with the elite housing "- concludes Medvedchuk. 

The Association Agreement with the European Union , Ukraine signed in Brussels on 27 June last year (both were signed similar agreements with Moldova and Georgia - Ed.). Most part of the agreement entered into force on 1 November, except for the section on creating a free trade area, which will take effect from 1 January 2016. The Association provides for the deepening of economic relations between Ukraine and the EU, harmonization in the field of law and the establishment of a free trade zone. 

The full document will come into force if, after ratification by the national parliaments of EU member states concur. According to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, it may take from one to three years longer.

America's Majority is not in Washington DC, Neoconservatives who Destabilize it are...

A Reality Check From Russia

Tue, Sep 16, 2014


America's Majority is not in Washington DC, Neoconservatives who Destabilize it are...

I’ve been in St. Petersburg and Moscow for the past two weeks. As for the tragedy being played out in Ukraine, it’s been surprising to find total uniformity of opinion from Russian citizens, including groups of our CCI alumni. This is not due to “controlled media,” since all I’ve spoken with check a multitude of media sources daily on Internet, including CNN. Their ages range from 25 to 55 years, generally they are the builders of Russia’s middle class. It is not long-term support for Putin, because at least half of them weren’t supporters of Putin previously. But today the situation has changed.

Crimea––they are adamant that Crimea has always been Russian; that Russia fought battles to keep Crimea in former centuries, and except for a small percentage of Tartars, Crimeans are ethnic Russians––and that Khrushchev turning Crimea over to Ukraine was just a fluke on paper of a discredited Soviet leader trying to impress his birthplace with his power. Many of our alumni vacation in Crimea (it has enviable warm weather), they claim they have never heard any language other than Russian spoken on Crimean streets, further that Crimeans are Russian Orthodox, and feel themselves to be Russian. I’m told that in 1991 when Yeltsin gave all areas outside of Russia their freedom, that the Crimeans declared themselves independent. Four months later, the bureaucrats in Kiev disagreed, and unfortunately Crimea has remained politically bound to Ukraine since. Our friends remind that as children they went to summer youth camps in Crimea and vacation there routinely as adults. They have always considered Crimea a part of Russia as did the locals. Hence, when it became obvious that Kiev would no longer permit Russian as official language and rapidly began institutionalizing Western Ukrainian culture in Crimea, the locals balked. Our alumni add that Crimeans were grateful and excited to be officially rejoined with Russia.

Sevastopol – city of the Russian glory in Crimea.

Is Russia’s Intention to capture former Soviet territories? Russians were shocked, flabbergasted, that I would even inquire whether Russia’s leadership would try to go into the Baltic countries, Poland or any of the former Soviet Republics. So I re-asked the question …. “What would you do if you saw on TV that Russia intended to move troops into one of these former Republics?” They grew quite agitated that I might feel it even a possibility. They were adamant that under no circumstances would Russia EVER be interested in having any of those countries under its control again. It was absolutely unthinkable to them.

Will Russia take more Southeastern Ukraine under its control? Absolutely not, was the speedy answer across the large room. They offered that Russia may help with reconstruction if and when this war comes to an end. But NEVER will Russia annex any of Southeastern Ukraine’s land. They say any information to the contrary is pure propaganda.

Russian/Ukraine history: Russians have always felt deeply related to Ukrainians –– indeed Kiev was the very center of Rus’ – Russia’s history and culture. Everyone I speak with here has close relatives living in Ukraine. The two countries have considered themselves of the same stock (except for Western Ukraine). Ukraine and Russia remind me of Siamese twins — with main arteries, bone structures, and organs being shared. Cutting, breaking them apart destroys vital flows of manufacturing, trade, other critical infrastructures––in addition to the hearts and souls of the peoples involved with each other for some three hundred years. It’s no wonder that many Ukrainian troops have defected and can’t shoot each other when forced into battle.

Ukraine has never been an independent nation of people welded together by ethnic bonds of its own. Western Ukraine, the European section which came under the USSR after WWII (formerly Poles, Austrians, Hungarians, and Germans), is now trying to force the rest of Ukraine, with US help, to separation with Russia and the joining of Europe. Southeastern Ukrainians, primarily ethnic Russians, refuse to give up their language and culture and be ruled by Western Ukrainians. This is the bottom line.

Western Ukrainians fought with the Nazis against the Soviet Union in WWII, and they have since despised Russia. They of course want to be joined with Europe. I’ve recommended all along that Ukraine be split into two cooperating states. Those who want to join Europe should be allowed, but they should not drag the Russian parts of Ukraine away from their trade and close cultural ties with Russia.

Ukraine, unlike Russia, has had terrible, corrupt leaders since communism imploded in 1991. Oligarchs (and political leaders who catered to Ukraine’s oligarchs) have since run the country into the ground. Hence ordinary Ukrainians are deeply disappointed and angry that they have not experienced order, stability, or decent economic development as has Russia, Poland, Hungary and the Baltics. Ukraine is a failed state––the war between the West and the East sectors has further devastated the few hopes that remained before the conflict started.


As far as I can tell a very slender but powerful minority in Washington decided years ago that Ukraine would be the prime place to challenge a future “come back” of Russia as one of several leading powers in the world. Archival material points out that the neoconservatives drew up a plan in 1992 that America had to be ready to take down militarily any country that would compete for its worldwide supremacy. It mentioned Russia which they felt would/could reorganize the union of former USSR republics. This minority gained momentum with both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and the White House.

As with other countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Central and South American countries) the first operation to accomplish is to demonize country leaders and destabilize the countries with the intention of regime change. It might be justifiable if the situations resulted in better living conditions and opportunities for the peoples of those countries, but unfortunately, none of them have turned out this way. 

The result is the war that is now tearing Ukraine apart

Victoria Nuland, the U.S. State Department chief diplomat in charge of Ukraine’s future, admitted our US taxpayers had put some $5 billion into preparing Ukraine to align with the US and Europe ––and not Russia. The result is the war that is now tearing Ukraine apart.

Russians reiterate continuously that their military is only for defensive purposes, that they will never start a war or a take over another country, but they will defend their borders. With Russia’s tragic history of being invaded by the Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler and others, that is understandable.


Justifiably so. Can we imagine what our US military would do if the Russians were putting missile bases across Canada within instant attack distance of Washington––or for that matter across the length of Mexico’s border with America? Or how would France feel if Germany decided to put weapons of mass destruction on their borders? No regional, let alone world power, would accept this without fighting back. Putin has, and Washington acts as if this is unreasonable, unthinkable.

My opinion is that Russia has shown remarkable restraint and cool headedness, all the while coming up with strikingly elegant solutions to defuse the dramatic situation south of their border.

Let us hope and pray that wisdom will rule in Washington––that tensions between Ukrainians will be tempered, the shooting will cease and a coalition of countries can begin helping Ukrainians survive the winter.

Sharon Tennison is the founder and President of the Center for Citizen Initiatives (USA).

“When the truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”It doesn't wash any more | #J_Pilger

Speech by John Pilger: ‘War by media and the triumph of propaganda’

“The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember.”

Introduction by New Cold editors: The following is a speech by Australian independent journalist John Pilger, delivered to the Logan Symposium of the Center for Investigative Journalism, at the Barbican Center, London UK, on Dec. 5, 2014. The symposium was part of the three-day, inaugural, annual conference of the Center for Investigative Journalism, Dec 5-7, 2014. The theme of the conference was Building an Alliance Against Secrecy, Surveillance and Censorship‘.

John Pilger speaking to Logan Symposium, London UK on Dec 5, 2014

Pilger opens his speech by noting, “The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war, with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.”

A portion of Pilger’s speech is dedicated to Ukraine. He tears into liberal media who he accuses of acting as handmaidans to a new cold war. He says their “inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious”.

Enclosed is the full text of his speech; the section devoted to Ukraine and the new cold war is highlighted.

You can read the text of John Pilger’s speech on his website, here. You can watch it here on You Tube, or by clicking on this screen:

* * *

John Pilger, speaking to the Logan Symposium of the Center for Investigative Journalism, at the Barbican Center, London UK, on Dec. 5, 2014:

Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what’s called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war – with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an “invisible government”. It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media – a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.

This power to create a new “reality” has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual.”

I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only “culture” and introspection could change the world.

Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of “me-ism” had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.

In the wake of the cold war, the fabrication of new “threats” completed the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition.

In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, “What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?”

He replied that if we journalists had done our job “there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq.”

That’s a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer. David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer.

In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist.

Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live.

Those are the words of the senior British official responsible for sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s – a medieval siege that caused the deaths of half a million children under the age of five, reported Unicef. The official’s name is Carne Ross. In the Foreign Office in London, he was known as “Mr. Iraq”. Today, he is a truth-teller of how governments deceive and how journalists willingly spread the deception. “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,” he told me, “or we’d freeze them out.”

The main whistleblower during this terrible, silent period was Denis Halliday. Then Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and the senior UN official in Iraq, Halliday resigned rather than implement policies he described as genocidal. He estimates that sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis.

What then happened to Halliday was instructive. He was airbrushed. Or he was vilified. On the BBC’s Newsnight programme, the presenter Jeremy Paxman shouted at him: “Aren’t you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?” The Guardian recently described this as one of Paxman’s “memorable moments”. Last week, Paxman signed a £1 million book deal.

The handmaidens of suppression have done their job well. Consider the effects. In 2013, a ComRes poll found that a majority of the British public believed the casualty toll in Iraq was less than 10,000 – a tiny fraction of the truth. A trail of blood that goes from Iraq to London has been scrubbed almost clean.

Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers – all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch’s empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media.

The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News – but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn’t Fox News; it was the New York Times.

The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia – when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.

This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It’s not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war.

Once again, the evil empire is coming to get us, led by another Stalin or, perversely, a new Hitler. Name your demon and let rip.

The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The biggest Western military build-up in the Caucasus and eastern Europe since world war two is blacked out. Washington’s secret aid to Kiev and its neo-Nazi brigades responsible for war crimes against the population of eastern Ukraine is blacked out. Evidence that contradicts propaganda that Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner is blacked out.

And again, supposedly liberal media are the censors. Citing no facts, no evidence, one journalist identified a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as the man who shot down the airliner. This man, he wrote, was known as The Demon. He was a scary man who frightened the journalist. That was the evidence.

Many in the western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.

What the Russian president has to say is of no consequence; he is a pantomime villain who can be abused with impunity. An American general who heads Nato and is straight out of Dr. Strangelove – one General Breedlove – routinely claims Russian invasions without a shred of visual evidence. His impersonation of Stanley Kubrick’s General Jack D. Ripper is pitch perfect.

Forty thousand Ruskies were massing on the border, according to Breedlove. That was good enough for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Observer – the latter having previously distinguished itself with lies and fabrications that backed Blair’s invasion of Iraq, as its former reporter, David Rose, revealed.

There is almost the joi d’esprit of a class reunion. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post are the very same editorial writers who declared the existence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction to be “hard facts”.

“If you wonder,” wrote Robert Parry, “how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.”

Parry, the journalist who revealed Iran-Contra, is one of the few who investigate the central role of the media in this “game of chicken”, as the Russian foreign minister called it. But is it a game? As I write this, the US Congress votes on Resolution 758 which, in a nutshell, says: “Let’s get ready for war with Russia.”

In the 19th century, the writer Alexander Herzen described secular liberalism as “the final religion, though its church is not of the other world but of this”. Today, this divine right is far more violent and dangerous than anything the Muslim world throws up, though perhaps its greatest triumph is the illusion of free and open information.

In the news, whole countries are made to disappear. Saudi Arabia, the source of extremism and western-backed terror, is not a story, except when it drives down the price of oil. Yemen has endured twelve years of American drone attacks. Who knows? Who cares?

In 2009, the University of the West of England published the results of a ten-year study of the BBC’s coverage of Venezuela. Of 304 broadcast reports, only three mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the government of Hugo Chavez. The greatest literacy programme in human history received barely a passing reference.

In Europe and the United States, millions of readers and viewers know next to nothing about the remarkable, life-giving changes implemented in Latin America, many of them inspired by Chavez. Like the BBC, the reports of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and the rest of the respectable western media were notoriously in bad faith. Chavez was mocked even on his deathbed. How is this explained, I wonder, in schools of journalism?

Why are millions of people in Britain are persuaded that a collective punishment called “austerity” is necessary?

Following the economic crash in 2008, a rotten system was exposed. For a split second the banks were lined up as crooks with obligations to the public they had betrayed.

But within a few months – apart from a few stones lobbed over excessive corporate “bonuses” – the message changed. The mugshots of guilty bankers vanished from the tabloids and something called “austerity” became the burden of millions of ordinary people. Was there ever a sleight of hand as brazen?

Today, many of the premises of civilised life in Britain are being dismantled in order to pay back a fraudulent debt – the debt of crooks. The “austerity” cuts are said to be £83 billion. That’s almost exactly the amount of tax avoided by the same banks and by corporations like Amazon and Murdoch’s News UK. Moreover, the crooked banks are given an annual subsidy of £100bn in free insurance and guarantees – a figure that would fund the entire National Health Service.

The economic crisis is pure propaganda. Extreme policies now rule Britain, the United States, much of Europe, Canada and Australia. Who is standing up for the majority? Who is telling their story? Who’s keeping record straight? Isn’t that what journalists are meant to do?

In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, revealed that more than 400 journalists and news executives worked for the CIA. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time and the TV networks. In 1991, Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian revealed something similar in this country.

None of this is necessary today. I doubt that anyone paid the Washington Post and many other media outlets to accuse Edward Snowden of aiding terrorism. I doubt that anyone pays those who routinely smear Julian Assange – though other rewards can be plentiful.

It’s clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by illuminating and shaming the media’s gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He became not only a target, but a golden goose.

Lucrative book and Hollywood movie deals were struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and its founder. People have made big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.

None of this was mentioned in Stockholm on 1 December when the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, shared with Edward Snowden the Right Livelihood Award, known as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize. What was shocking about this event was that Assange and WikiLeaks were airbrushed. They didn’t exist. They were unpeople. No one spoke up for the man who pioneered digital whistleblowing and handed the Guardian one of the greatest scoops in history. Moreover, it was Assange and his WikiLeaks team who effectively – and brilliantly – rescued Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and sped him to safety. Not a word.

What made this censorship by omission so ironic and poignant and disgraceful was that the ceremony was held in the Swedish parliament – whose craven silence on the Assange case has colluded with a grotesque miscarriage of justice in Stockholm.

“When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.”

It’s this kind of silence we journalists need to break. We need to look in the mirror. We need to call to account an unaccountable media that services power and a psychosis that threatens world war.

In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn’t wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

It’s 100 years since the First World War. Reporters then were rewarded and knighted for their silence and collusion. At the height of the slaughter, British prime minister David Lloyd George confided in C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: “If people really knew [the truth] the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don’t know and can’t know.”

It’s time they knew.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

US propaganda campaign against Russia could lead to nuclear catastrophe: James Henry Fetzer

US propaganda campaign against Russia could lead to nuclear catastrophe: Scholar

Interview Audio Link
Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:10PM

Washington’s unparalleled demonization campaign against Russia and President Putin could lead to a nuclear catastrophe, American scholar James Henry Fetzer says.

Washington’s unprecedented propaganda campaign to demonize Russia and President Vladimir Putin could lead to a nuclear catastrophe, according to an American scholar in Madison, Wisconsin.

Professor James Henry Fetzer, an editor at Veterans Today, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV while commenting on a former White House official’s article in which he warned that the US is pushing the world towards a nuclear Armageddon.

“The propaganda campaign attempting to demonize Vladimir Putin and Russia is reaching unparalleled heights today, as Paul Craig Roberts has astutely delineated in his recent report about the frightening combination of extreme disinformation unrelated to the realities of the situation in the world, with 450 US ICBMs on hair-trigger alert, which, as he correctly observes, could lead to a nuclear catastrophe,” Fetzer said.

“The question that has to be raised is why all of this propaganda is taking place which is so pervasive, so extensive, so intense, which I believe can only be understood against the background of appreciating why any nation or party would have an interest in or benefit from demonizing Vladimir Putin in Russia,” he added.Russian President Vladimir Putin

“It appears to me is that the motives trace back to Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu who is outraged that Russia is providing Iran with advanced air defense systems, that are going to make all but impossible for Israel to launch an attack upon Iran’s nuclear facilities,” he noted.

On September, 11, 2001, unprecedented attacks destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and damaged the Pentagon in Washington. The attacks also killed nearly 3000 Americans.

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but independent analysts say it was a false-flag operation carried out by US neoconservatives along with the Israeli intelligence agencies in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.

“The events of 9/11 were artificially were contrived by the CIA, the neocons in the Department of the Defense and Mossad to change US foreign policy from one in which – at least officially -- ‘we’ve never attacked any nation that have not attack us first’ to one in which we regain an aggressor nation, immediately launching attacks on Afghanistan, subsequently on Iraq, then on Libya, ongoing efforts to undermine Syria, and one expects that Iran is in the offing in the background as the ultimate target,” said, Fetzer, the co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

“In addition, we have the neocons, where it must be remembered that most of these neocons are dual US-Israeli citizens,” he pointed out.

He went on to say that neocons, such as Andrew Lack, are “conducting extraordinary disinformation campaign to even discredit Russia Today, which along with Press TV, maybe the most reliable truth-telling news outlets in the world today, suggesting that truth-tellers are terrorists.”Neoconservative Andrew Lack, a former chairman of NBC news

“The situation is very, very bad. We now have US military drills in Europe, that are angering the Russians, but where the US, Britain, France and Jordan have refused to name ISIS as a terrorist group,” the American scholar noted.

“In the background loomed success of the BRICS arrangement, the new alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Russia is providing these air defense systems, China is going to develop a nuclear reactor for Iran. There is growing strength of relationship between Russia, Iran and China, which is a very positive development,” he said.

“The situation is very troubling. Paul Craig Roberts is quite valiant. He has done a wonderful work, and all of us have must pause and consider why there’s this fanatic effort to attack Putin and Russia, when they represent sane voices in a world of chaos today,” Fetzer concluded.