About five years ago I made a comparison between the CCTV anchor Yang Rui and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Ultimately, the conclusion was that “It is time to pick up the remote control, time to think, and time to stop listening to the drivel that the “Yangs” and “Bills” spout and when we stop listening to them, perhaps, we will stop listening to their political masters.” However, what happens when the propaganda is a little bit more subtle than the garbage spouted by Yang and Bill?
Anyway, there was me watching the host of RT’s CrossTalk, Peter Lavelle, gang up on one of his guests yesterday and it soon became obvious that not only is Lavelle very much a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, but that there is also something to be said for the conclusion reached by Oliver Bullough in his New Statesman article “Inside Russia Today: counterweight to the mainstream media, or Putin’s mouthpiece?“ last May, when he wrote that Putin “…… funds RT to persuade everyone else that their own countries are no better (than Russia).”
Nevertheless, should that stop us at least looking at the other side of the story, and should it prevent us wanting to puke at the hypocritical propaganda that is disseminated by the mainstream media in the west? It shouldn’t, of course, for, if it were to do either, we would be entering that Orwellian world where 2+2=5. As it is, we have not yet entered that world and that is why we might be grateful for articles such as the one from Tariq Ali in yesterday’s “Guardian”. In discussing “how Vladimir Putin became evil”, Mr Ali writes:
“The Crimean affair led to barely any loss of life, and the population clearly wanted to be part of Russia. The White House’s reaction has been the opposite of its reaction to Chechnya. Why? Because Putin, unlike Yeltsin, is refusing to play ball any more on the things that matter such as Nato expansion, sanctions on Iran, Syria etc. As a result, he has become evil incarnate.”
Yes, Mr Lavelle, might be another Yang or Bill, but the West did not care one jot about the “rape, torture, homeless refugees and tens of thousands dead” in Chechnya, the hypocrisy is disgusting and the ambitions criminal, even if the man in Moscow is most certainly not Mr Nice Guy.
There wasn’t anything unexpected at Obama’s news conference in the Hague today. There weren’t any awkward questions from the usual array of sycophant scribblers who are invited to attend such meetings and was no real variation of the hypocritical hyperbole from Mr President himself. Does anyone really take his “It is now up to Russia to act responsibly and show itself once again willing to abide by international rules and international norms.” seriously? It was,therefore a speech, however gratifying he might have found it, that the unelected Prime Minister of the Ukraine could afford to miss.
That is why it is no surprise to discover that Arseniy Yatsenyuk decided that it was more important for him to turn his attentions to the more pressing business of completing his country’s bailout talks with the IMF. Furthermore, with him describing his task as a, “kamikaze” mission, while saying the country is in a “great mess,” with an empty treasury, unpaid pensions and foreign-currency reserves having been “robbed”, there is at least some evidence to suggest that he has no illusions of what a “cap in hand” mission to the IMF in actual fact implies. Of course, that “awareness” will not change anything with the unelected Prime Minister has already decided that Kiev has “….. no other choice but to accept the IMF offer”.Therefore, it might be important to summarize the nature of what that “offer” will actually entail and what it means, of course, is that the majority of the population will become even poorer, while “a small corrupt and subservient political and economic elite”, will become richer. It is tempting to say that State assets will be transferred into the hands of foreign investors, but that is strictly speaking not true, after all, there will be very little real investment.
Indeed, with reports that the Ukraine’s gold reserves are being transferred to the United States it might be that the “big steal” has already begun. For while it might be politically expedient to think that either “the new ruling elite have stolen the gold bullion or perhaps their is a legitimate fear of the Russians taking possession of this bullion”, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that once the western banks get their hands on your gold, you are probably not going to get it back. Just ask the Germans or the Saudis ….. or the Iraqis, or the Libyans. Anyone else had their gold stolen recently? Yes, first your gold and then your country.
When Putin drew a parallel between the Crimea and Kosovo in his speech and then used the latter to justify Russian action in the Crimea he was, at the very least, demonstrating a flawed logic. After all, Russia refuses to recognise the Kosovo.Therefore, does it not follow that Moscow’s annexation of the Crimea is illegal?
Nevertheless, as was pointed out earlier had the United States and the European Union not facilitated what was an illegal coup in Kiev there would have been no referendum in the Crimea. Therefore, while Russia’s fait accompli might be contrary to international law, it is fair to say that the catalyst for it was the events in Kiev. Moreover, while Moscow most certainly cannot be condoned for annexing the Crimea, it is also difficult to condemn that annexation unreservedly. Was Moscow expected to wait until the US navy arrived in Sevastopol?
That is why it might be appropriate to consider the achievements until now and the ultimate goals of those neo-conservative groups which were instrumental in the Maidan demonstrations and the violent overthrow of what was an elected government.
To begin with, even if nuclear weapons don’t come into play, the neocons have provoked a confrontation between the major nuclear powers. Furthermore, they have succeeded in driving a wedge between Putin and Obama to the point where cooperation on Syria and Iran is no longer possible. This in itself might be seen as one of their major goals? Nevertheless, the neocon operatives, led by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also have more immediate and wider ranger goals.
Last September those aims were formulated by the NED president Carl Gershman in the “Washington Post” when he said that the Ukraine was the “biggest prize”. In other words, over six months ago the NED, whose funding is approved by Congress, was pursuing a change of government in Kiev. However, while the Ukraine might be the “biggest prize” Gershman then went on to state that it was in fact only a stage towards a much bigger goal,which was removal of Putin. In other words, the neo-cons ultimate goal is regime change in Kiev and Moscow.Of course, it cannot be expected that Putin will stand idly by and let this happen.
There are, of course, other forces at play in this drama and it might be worthwhile querying the role of the European Union, which has just signed an association agreement with the Ukraine’s “unelected” interim prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. That querying might prompt a number of questions. For instance, is the EU being used by Washington or does it have geopolitical ambitions of its own, and who is meant to pay for the Ukraine?
Unfortunately, while that last question might be a restraining factor on unrealistic EU ambitions, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that it will not worry the neocons as they go after their greatest prize as they continue to pursue their project for a new American century.
Since the Russian annexation of the Crimea it has at least become clear that it is not going to be plain sailing for them, but then they are probably not too worried, after all, it is not they who will be paying the price, neither for a Ukraine brought into the western sphere, nor for the chaos which is about to break loose.
Had the United States and the European Union not facilitated what was an illegal coup in Kiev there would have been no referendum in the Crimea. However, with President Putin’s speech to the federal assembly today a fait accompli has been created and, whether Washington and its allies like it or not, it is now time for the rhetoric and polemic, the hypocritical hyperbole, of many western leaders, and the propagandist polemic pish of many more hangers-on such as McCain, Biden, Hague etc., to take a back seat, Are these people really serious when they appeal to an international law that they themselves disregard time and time again?
Unfortunately, not only are they serious and seriously deluded, but they seem to be, as has been shown time and time again, incapable of putting the lid back on the Pandora’s box which they have opened. Of course, it might be argued that this is exactly what they want and certainly, it that is so, their aims are facilitated when the unelected Ukrainian “prime minister”, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, says that “the conflict has entered a military phase” after shots were fired at a Ukrainian military base in Simferopol, and a Ukrainian soldier was killed, and, it would appear that Yatsenyuk, is one of the more moderate members of what even the mainstream British media view as, a far right regime.
There is much more at stake here than the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and, if there are not forces and leaders in the West who bring a measure of control into this situation the rest of the Ukraine will descend into chaos with far-reaching consequences for all of us. It is time for those leaders and forces to show themselves because it would appear that there is a political elite in Washington in particular that wants this chaos and there is more than enough evidence to suggest that behind Maidan, behind the extremely right-wing government in Kiev, behind the disgusting hypocritical western media, we have a neo-con agenda that could lead us all to Armageddon. For that to be prevented our confrontation should not be with Putin in the first instance, but rather with the enemy within and when that happens we could in all sincerity once again appeal to international law.
The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the process of secularisation, and somebody, or a lot of people, somewhere, or indeed in many places, just stopped the catholic church from burning people at the stake. It wasn’t a case of them not wanting to do it anymore, but more a case of them just not being allowed to and that might in itself be enough reason to puke when the converted catholic Tony Blair tells us that extremist religion is at the root of 21st century wars. Of course, the myopic, self-centred Tony, will no doubt view his own “new old” religion purely as a source of a personal salvation that will facilitate him living for eternity. This is a man who is unable to come to terms not only with the horrific crimes against humanity that he has committed, but also with his own mortality.
Still, might this “true friend of Israel” be right to some extent.? After all, not only is the Jewish state continuing with its ongoing ethnic cleansing of illegally occupied land, while actively destabilizing the countries in the region, but we also have some of Mr Blair’s other friends in the region wanting nothing less than to turn the clock back to 680 AD and the Battle of Karbala.
Nevertheless, the conclusion not only has to be that neither the Iraq war nor the Afghanistan war were about religion, but also that ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere have really very little to do with different interpretations of the great gobbledygook..
These wars, caused by criminals such as Blair, are primarily about power and stealing resources. Still, when you are committing crimes against humanity how convenient it is to attempt to tell the world that you are battling religious extremism, even if you have to get a few religious extremists on side to help you commit your crime.
In today’s “Daily Drivel”, at first glance, we have one journalist appearing to report another journalist’s story almost ad verbatim, with both articles appearing in the same newspaper on the same day.
Of course, The Guardian’s Martin Chulov might argue that he was pointing out that while Ian Black’s, – the paper’s Middle East editor – article was based on a report which “proves” an array of atrocities by the Assad regime, his own article does add the information that, according to International bodies these atrocities are only the tip of the iceberg. Well, thanks for the extra “information” Martin, even if it might contradict Ian a little bit when he writes:
“The UN and independent human rights groups have documented abuses by both Bashar al-Assad’s government and rebels, but experts say this evidence is more detailed and on a far larger scale than anything else that has yet emerged from the 34-month crisis.”
It really does represent at best bad journalism and it can surely be expected that these people sit down in a room together and work on their stories, which are after all appearing in the same newspaper and on the same day.All the more so as Mr Chuvlov’s article begins immediately by referring to Mr Black’s article.
At best bad journalism or, perhaps, just a waste of newspaper space, ….. and at worst? Where do we start? We’ll there might be Martin Chulov’s credibility as a journalist and it is fairly certain that Ian Black will always follow the standard mainstream version of events without giving us privy to the bigger picture and the real criminals in the West who have not only allowed all of this to happen, but who have actively promoted and facilitated it along with their friends in Turkey, Saudi, Israel and the Golf.