(Update at the foot of the article)
This last week has seen a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of the Novorossian Armed Forces (NAF); from barely holding on, to turning the tables on the forces of the Kiev junta regime. The NAF has from the beginning imposed heavy losses on the Kiev forces, often in the order of 10 to 1, but they were unable to hold many strategic areas as they were greatly outnumbered and did not have the heavy equipment needed to sustain heavy attacks. So what happened?
It wasn't luck or happen-stance that led to this turnaround. It was planned from the beginning. Well, almost the beginning. After the Crimean vote for independence and then decision to join the Russian Federation, the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv also proposed referendums. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, advised these oblasts to postpone their referendums. Kharkiv agreed but Dontesk and Luhansk proceded with their referendums calling on increased independence from Kiev. The votes were over 90% in favour of independence in the form of a federation, at least, if not more.
Kiev then decided that the smartest thing to do was to wage war on the citizens of the eastern oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk to win their hearts and minds back to their illegally imposed masters in Kiev. This piece of genius from the Kiev fascists sparked an armed defence from the citizens against the shelling of their towns and cities.
A retired Russian colonel, Igor Strelkov, appeared amongst the eastern Ukrainians (henceforth called Novorossians) and organised them into a citizens militia and led them brilliantly against the fascist Kiev junta forces.
In my last article, I made the case for the bankers pushing for a cold war with Russia with the aim of isolating it economically so as to capture the European market for their $US and rescue the bankers' position from total collapse. But where to from there for the bankers because they have ambitions of ruling the whole world, after all, and are not about to give that dream up. There is no rest for the wicked especially when a country such as Russia threatens their existence.
The bankers will be intent first of all on consolidating their political and economic grip on the US and Europe and also the Pacific Rim nations. The goal is to secure these economic markets so as to enforce the exclusive use of $US for international transactions within this trade bloc. The bankers' power stems from the use of the $US by other countries. Once (and if) this is done and having re-consolidated their power base, they will turn their full attention back to Russia, China, the other BRICS nations and also the recalcitrant Latin American nations such as Venezuela. The reason is that the bankers have another fundamental problem and it is to do with the economies of Russia and China.
These economies have a decided advantage over Anglo/Zionist economies and so the empire of the bankers must eventually wage war on Russia and China if it is to survive let alone rule the world.
But before we examine that weakness, let's zoom out into space a little to get a wider view on the world.
You'll notice that Eurasia and Africa constitute the majority of the land mass of the world. Eurasia and Africa combined also has the vast bulk of the population of the world. Notice the size of England to the far left of the map. It's tiny (it is actually smaller than the map indicates because this is a Mercator map which exaggerates the size of Britain and diminishes the real size of Africa by quite a bit). And Japan over at the right hand fringe of the vast Eurasian continent. It's tiny, too. Yet both these countries have historically caused massive problems for the peoples of Eurasia. There is something very odd going on here.
A new wave of fear is coursing around the internet due to talk about an immanent 'hot' war between NATO and Russia. Should we be surprised at this? No. Fear is the stock in trade for the war mongers. They use it to cover their motivation and to induce people and nations to make rash and disastrous decisions.
The outrageous propaganda is displaying a desperation. The warmongers are outing themselves and their media empire for exactly what it is.
But why? What are they so afraid of that the media is risking whatever credibility they have left to vilify Russia? And why risk doing it in unison putting on display the co-ordinated nature and therefore centralized control of the media?
Saker has put up a video of a talk by Sergei Glazyev made several weeks ago outlining his case that the aggression of the US using its proxy, the Ukrainian junta, is not only against the people of eastern Ukraine but also Russia. This will continue until Ukraine (doing the bidding of the US) is waging direct war against Russia. Glazyev says the longer Russia waits the better organized and larger the Ukrainian force becomes. He makes a convincing case and has so far been proved right. I agree with him on everything he says except with his prediction of the Ukrainian aggression growing into an armed confrontation with NATO for Russia. He gives no details as to why he thinks this will happen except that to him it follows on naturally from the proxy war because it is aimed at Russia anyway.
I am reminded of the oft reported remark of the neocon, Michael Ledeen, some years ago, "Every few years the United States needs to pick up some little shitty country and throw it against the wall to show the world we mean business". Well, they have picked up Ukraine now and are throwing it against the wall called Russia hoping to hurt both in the process.
I'll detail further down the article why I think this aggression against Russia via Ukraine will not turn into a full-on NATO Vs Russia shooting war but will build as a new Cold War. It may well become a shooting war between Ukraine and Russia though just like NATO encouraged Georgia to do. But NATO will do exactly as they did in Georgia - nothing.
Interestingly, although Glazyev is the economic advisor to Vladimir Putin and the architect of the Russian move away from using the $US, he makes no mention of it. It is odd because this issue is the central reason the covert/proxy war is being waged on Russia by the US.
Saker says by way of introduction to another article, “I am seriously getting the feeling that the western plutocracy has decided to trigger a war with Russia. What else could explain this type of coordinated "minute of hate" -kind of propaganda:”
The question is rhetorical and relies on the assumption that there is no other reason to explain the propaganda except the proposition before it; that “the western plutocracy has decided to trigger a war with Russia.”
What else could it be? Well I can think of one thing straight off, a Cold War rather than another World (and likely nuclear) War. But before we get to that, I'd like to outline exactly what it is that Russia is threatening the US with so that we might better understand what is at stake here and for whom. Then I'd like to enlarge on what the US can do about this threat and what it can't do.
In my last article, Ukrainian Goulash, I took Robert Parry to task for framing his article in such a way as to bring about the opposite effect of what he was apparently trying to achieve. I outlined the methods that could be seen in his article and explained how they were counterproductive to the cause of exposing the truth. I copied his article in full and placed what I called 'minimizing language' in bold in his article and added explanatory notes in the text indicating misleading words and statements within brackets and highlighted those notes in blue.
I added an introduction and an epilogue to provide a context and give an explanation of the meaning I arrived at from my reading of Robert Parry's article.
The Saker at The Vineyard of the Saker blog has repeated the visual method of bolded text and comments in blue with an article he has copied from AP but has used it in a different manner to me to arrive at a different sort of conclusion. But more on that below.
Disinformation articles are poorly arranged logically. This shouldn't be a surprise as the intent is to confuse. The masters of this art are able to confuse the reader just enough so they are not consciously aware that they are confused or mislead because of the inconsistencies and contradictions.
So it is beholden on someone who wants to convey truth to be clear and consistent. There is a tried and true method of doing that using what is commonly known as a logical structure. This used to be formally taught in schools a century ago and was called 'the Trivium'. It consists of laying out the data using sentences or language that makes sense grammatically. This might include some history and a context. There will be facts which will be sourced and are verifiable. Next these facts are arranged in a logical sequence that is consistent and with no contradictions or fallacies. From this might be drawn meaning and wisdom; true knowledge and actionable understanding, in other words.
For an example of this clear, consistent and logical layout, please watch Zack Taylor make the case for the breakdown of the Border Patrol effectiveness in southern United States and the government's active and deliberate participation in this breakdown of what amounts to a gross breach of national security. The subject is important in itself and has parallels to what is going on in Ukraine in so far as US govt lying and asymmetrical warfare are concerned.
I am going to feature an article by Robert Parry. I've called it "Ukrainian Goulash" because Mr Parry presents for us a 'hodge-podge' of ideas and events (many that include mention of Russia) that mix some real events with others that never happened or that are irrelevant. This is served with a sauce of supposition and minimization that leaves a peculiar after taste in the mouth.
I will include the article in question in full but will add editorial comments in blue and in brackets that refer to events that may be real or not; or minimized or irrelevant. The 'minimal sauce' of Russian references and minimizing language that Mr Parry peppers (sorry) throughout his article will be highlighted in bold. There is very little in the way of facts or sources and the language is vague.
Before we start, though, it might be useful to refresh our memories of a few facts that are generally available to the public and would certainly be available to Robert Parry with his connections to various government and intelligence agencies.
It must be borne in mind that all employees of US intelligence agencies sign agreements to the effect that they will not speak or publish anything that even hints at national security without submitting it the agency concerned for vetting. In other words, when someone like ex-CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, publishes an article, it has been approved by the CIA.
Similarly, anyone who conveys intelligence information to a journalist like Robert Parry, whether through a third party or not, is breaching his contract of employment and the law and maybe guilty of treason if his action and information has not been previously approved for distribution or 'leaking'. Also, the journalist concerned will be breaking the law if this has not been approved.
So, given that Robert Parry has quoted CIA sources and has not been charged with any offences arising from this article or any previous ones quoting 'inside information' and remains employed as a publishing journalist, we can take it that the intelligence agencies, at the very least, are not upset with the 'leaks' or, more likely, have approved the distribution of the 'information'. Either way, the logic says it must suit the CIA's purposes.
Also, Mr Parry represents the State Dept (bad guys), the CIA (good guys) and the Obama Administration (clueless guys) as all acting independently from one another. And, indeed, certain individuals such as Victoria Nuland actually facilitate coups quite independently to further their own personal careers and presumably without any harm to said career. This is not credible, especially in time of war.