Ukrainian Goulash: served up by Robert Parry

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.

Putin and Russia are linked via negative words with events that haven't happened. For instance, the article states that there was no detected movement of missiles across the Russian/Ukrainian border. And there are other cases of this in the article. For the unwary reader, this connects in their subconscious mind the subject of Russia with the object of missiles crossing the border even though it is admitted that no such thing has happened.

To demonstrate this briefly, if I were to say that a certain Catholic priest was not a paedophile, your mind will consider the possibility of the priest being a paedophile. Your subconscious mind will not consider the possibility of him not being a paedophile. The subconscious mind is incapable of thinking in negatives. It can picture a paedophile but it cannot picture a "not paedophile". It's not possible because it doesn't exist. Our subconscious mind is programmed through hundreds of thousands of years to absorb all that exists. How can it absorb what doesn't exist? For more on this subject, read a brief article here.

There are some ingredients, though, that are conspicuous by their absence. No international political stew would be complete without guns and money, to wit the Pentagon, NATO, mercenaries, armaments, bribes, the IMF and the US$. These are all missing. No wonder it doesn't go down well, you might say.

Parry's headline and the focus of the article is about the "Rush to Judgement" of the Obama Administration. This implies that the US govt is a bystander in the conflict and determining the truth from observation. But we know that the US govt has been a participant. It is not an observer. Far from it.

It has been complicit up to its armpits in fomenting the Maidan demonstrations, the subsequent rioting and the subsequent sniper shooting and the following overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. They then also appointed the usurping junta government. Victoria Nuland told us all about it!

There are continuous references to Russia as if the downed airliner and Russia are equal parts of the one story. In fact, Russia is mentioned far more times than the airliner.

At the foot of the article, i will endeavour to draw together what it all of this means.

So without further ado, here is Robert Parry from Consortium News:-
(remember, minimizing language plus mentions of Russia, Russian and Putin will be highlighted in bold)

Airline Horror Spurs New Rush to Judgment
July 19, 2014

Exclusive: President Obama and the State Department’s “anti-diplomats” are fanning flames of anger against Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. But some U.S. intelligence analysts doubt the popular “blame-the-Russians” scenario, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration and the mainstream U.S. news media are charging off toward another rush to judgment blaming Ukrainian rebels and the Russian government for the shoot-down of a Malaysia Airlines plane, much as occurred last summer regarding a still-mysterious sarin gas attack in Syria. (There's no mystery. There's plenty of evidence including a UN report from Carla Del Ponte implicating the Jihadists and no evidence implicating the Syrian Government. This is widely known especially in the circles Robert Parry moves in)

In both cases, rather than let independent investigators sort out the facts, President Barack Obama’s ever-aggressive State Department and the major U.S. media simply accepted that the designated villains of those two crises – Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine – were the guilty parties. Yet, some U.S. intelligence analysts dissented from both snap conventional wisdoms.

Regarding the shoot-down of the Malaysian jetliner on Thursday, I’m told that some CIA analysts cite U.S. satellite reconnaissance photos suggesting that the anti-aircraft missile that brought down Flight 17 was fired by Ukrainian troops from a government battery, not by ethnic Russian rebels who have been resisting the regime in Kiev since elected President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on Feb. 22.

According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site. But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility.

A contrary emphasis has been given to the Washington Post and other mainstream U.S. outlets. On Saturday, the Post reported that “on Friday, U.S. officials said a preliminary intelligence assessment indicated the airliner was blown up by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by the separatists.” But the objectivity of the Obama administration, which has staunchly supported the coup regime, is in question as are the precise reasons for its judgments.

Even before the Feb. 22 coup, senior administration officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, were openly encouraging (inciting paid) protesters seeking the overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland went so far as to pass out cookies to the demonstrators and discuss with Pyatt who should (would) be appointed once Yanukovych was removed.

After Yanukovych and his officials were forced to flee in the face of mass protests and violent attacks (death threats) by neo-Nazi militias, the State Department was quick to declare the new government “legitimate” and welcomed Nuland’s favorite (appointee), Arseniy Yatsenyuk, as the new prime minister.

As events have unfolded since then, including Crimea’s secession to join Russia and bloody attacks (massacres) directed at ethnic Russians in Odessa and elsewhere, the Obama administration has consistently taken the side of the Kiev regime and bashed Moscow.

And, since Thursday, when the Malaysian plane was shot down killing 298 people, the Ukrainian government and the Obama administration have pointed the finger of blame at the rebels and the Russian government, albeit without the benefit of a serious (any) investigation that is only now beginning (at the urging of the Russian government).

One of the administration’s points has been that the Buk anti-aircraft missile system, which was apparently used to shoot down the plane, was “Russian made.” But the point is rather silly since nearly all Ukrainian military weaponry is “Russian made.” Ukraine, after all, was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 and has continued to use mostly Russian military equipment.

It’s also not clear how the U.S. government ascertained that the missile was an SA-11 as opposed to other versions of the Buk missile system.

Slanting the Case

Virtually everything that U.S. officials have said appears designed to tilt suspicions toward the Russians and the rebels – and away from government forces. Referring ominously to the sophistication of the SA-11, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power declared, “We cannot rule out Russian technical assistance.” (pie in the sky supposition) But that phrasing supposedly means that the administration can’t rule it in either. (pure supposition. You can't prove a negative. There's lots of things that can't be ruled out. The list could go on forever. Just to pick a ridiculous case to make my point, we can't rule out that Robert Parry works undercover for the CIA, for instance)

Still, in reading between the lines of the mainstream U.S. press accounts, it’s possible to see where some of the gaps (there's no involvement so there can be no 'solid bits' between the 'gaps'. Therefore no 'gaps') are regarding the supposed Russian hand in Thursday’s tragedy. For instance, the Post’s Craig Whitlock reported that Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, U.S. commander of NATO forces in Europe, said last month that “We have not seen any of the [Russian] air-defense vehicles across the border yet.” (phrased in the negative. There's no evidence of it happening yet the idea is sown)

Since these Buk missile systems are large and must be transported on trucks, it would be difficult to conceal their presence from U.S. aerial surveillance which has been concentrating intensely on the Ukraine-Russia border in recent months.(more on this below)

The Post also reported that “Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said defense officials could not point to specific evidence that an SA-11 surface-to-air missile system had been transported from Russia into eastern Ukraine.” (reference to something that hasn't happened. Planting the seed)

In other words, the mystery is still not solved. (word association with Syrian chemical weapons) It may be that the rebels – facing heavy bombardment from the Ukrainian air force – convinced the Russians to provide more advanced anti-aircraft weapons (pure supposition - zero evidence) than the shoulder-fired missiles that the rebels have used to bring down some Ukrainian military planes.

It’s possible, too, that a rebel detachment mistook the civilian airliner for a military plane or even that someone in the Russian military launched the fateful rocket at the plane heading toward Russian airspace. (pure unfounded supposition - zero evidence)

But both the Russian government and the rebels dispute those scenarios. The rebels say they don’t have missiles that can reach the 33,000-foot altitude of the Malaysian airliner. Besides denying a hand in the tragedy, the Russians claim that the Ukrainian military did have Buk anti-aircraft systems in eastern Ukraine and that the radar of one battery was active on the day of the crash.

The Russian Defense Ministry stated that “The Russian equipment detected throughout July 17 the activity of a Kupol radar, deployed as part of a Buk-M1 battery near Styla [a village some 30 kilometers south of Donetsk],” according to an RT report.

So, the other alternative remains in play, that a Ukrainian military unit – possibly a poorly supervised bunch – fired the missile intentionally or by accident. Why the Ukrainian military would intentionally have aimed at a plane flying eastward toward Russia is hard to comprehend, however. (Hard to comprehend? Really? The internet is full of 'false flag' claims)

A Propaganda Replay?

But perhaps the larger point is that both the Obama administration and the U.S. press corps should stop this pattern of rushing to judgments. It’s as if they’re obsessed with waging “information (covert proxy) warfare” – i.e., justifying hostilities toward some adversarial nation – rather than responsibly informing the American people. (Who would have guessed it?)

We saw this phenomenon in 2002-03 as nearly the entire Washington press corps (at the direction of the media owners) clambered onboard President George W. Bush’s propaganda bandwagon into an aggressive (criminal) war against Iraq. That pattern almost repeated itself last summer when a similar rush to judgment occurred around a (jihadist) sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, on Aug. 21.

Though the evidence was murky, there was a stampede to assume that the Assad government was behind the attack. While blaming Syrian army, the U.S. press ignored the possibility (certainty) that the attack was a provocation committed by radical (Saudi/NATO) jihadist rebels who were hoping that U.S. air power could turn the tide of the war in their favor.

Rather than carefully weigh the complex evidence, the State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry tried to spur President Obama into a quick decision to bomb Syrian government targets. Kerry delivered a belligerent speech on Aug. 30 and the administration released what it called a “Government Assessment” supposedly proving the case.

But this four-page white paper contained no verifiable evidence supporting its accusations and it soon became clear that the report had excluded dissents that some U.S. intelligence analysts would have (but didn't) attached to a more formal paper prepared by the intelligence community.

Despite the war hysteria then gripping Official Washington, President Obama rejected war at the last moment and – with the help of Russian President Putin – was able to negotiate (was forced to accept) a resolution of the crisis in which Assad surrendered Syria’s chemical weapons while still denying a hand in the sarin gas attack. (linking Assad to sarin attack in spite of all evidence to the contrary while using the negative, "denying")

The mainstream U.S. press, especially the (Zionist) New York Times, and some non-governmental organizations, such as (the CIA's) Human Rights Watch, continued pushing the theme of the Syrian government’s guilt. HRW and the Times teamed up for a major story that purported to show the flight paths of two sarin-laden missiles vectoring back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.

For a time, this report was treated as the slam-dunk evidence proving the case against Assad, until it turned out that only one of the rockets carried sarin and the maximum range of the one that did have sarin was only about two kilometers. (and your conclusion is ...?)

Despite knowing these weaknesses in the case, President Obama stood by his State Department hawks by reading a speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24 in which he declared: “It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.”

In watching Obama’s address, I was struck by how casually he lied (as if he doesn't all the time). He knew better than almost anyone that some of his senior intelligence analysts were among those doubting (who knew the lack of) the Syrian government’s guilt. Yet, he suggested that anyone who wasn’t onboard the propaganda train was crazy. (Conclusion?)

Since then, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed other evidence indicating that the sarin attack may indeed have been a rebel provocation meant to push Obama over the “red line” that he had drawn about not tolerating chemical weapons use.

Now, we are seeing a repeat performance in which Obama understands the doubts (knows) about the identity of who fired the missile that brought down the Malaysian airliner but is pushing the suspicions in a way designed to whip up animosity toward Russia and President Putin.

Obama may think this is a smart play because he can posture as tough when many of his political enemies portray him as weak. He also buys himself some P.R. protection in case it turns out that the ethnic Russian rebels or the Russian military do share the blame for the tragedy. ("Russian", "blame" and "tragedy" in the one sentence and all untrue. See below) He can claim to have been out front in making the accusations.

But there is a dangerous downside to creating a public hysteria about nuclear-armed Russia. As we have seen already in Ukraine, events can spiral out of control in unpredictably ways. (linking "nuclear armed Russia" with "out of control" and "unpredictable")

Assistant Secretary Nuland and other State Department hawks probably thought they were building their careers when they encouraged (engineered) the Feb. 22 coup – (independent action? I don't think so) and they may well be right about advancing their status in Official Washington at least. (Not unless they followed orders) But they also thawed out long-frozen animosities between the “ethnically pure” (?!) Ukrainians in the west and the ethnic Russians in the east. (Nuland admitted the State dept spent $5b and twenty years exacerbating these divisions and that is common knowledge. Hardly 'thawing'. It was like using a blow torch)

Those tensions – many dating back to World War II and before – have now become searing hatreds with hundreds of dead on both sides (Dead soldiers on one side and dead civilians on the other. False equivalency). The nasty, little Ukrainian civil war also made Thursday’s horror possible. (So both sides are responsible for shooting down the airliner? I don't think so. False equivalency)

But even greater calamities could lie ahead if the State Department’s “anti-diplomats” succeed in reigniting the Cold War (scapegoating a few personnel in place of the Obama Administration). The crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 should be a warning about the dangers of international brinkmanship (false flag operations).

Overall, what we have is an article speaking about the tragedy of the shooting down of the Malaysian airlines plane which mentions Russia and repeating the accusations against it repeatedly, even ad nauseum, together with the use of "airline", "blame" and "tragedy". The effect is to link these words together in the subconscious mind of the reader to create, at the very least, doubt of Russia's innocence or the false conclusion of actual guilt.

Repeated use is made of the device of saying "we have no evidence of . . . " This, as I said in the introduction links, in the subconscious of the unwary, "Russia" with "evidence" which of course is simply not there. This is how you imply guilt by introducing doubt using 'no evidence'.

The clincher to all this is that the CIA would have a satellite (or two or three) over the east of Ukraine at all times. A missile such as the Buk would leave a clear trajectory path for the intel guys to follow and to track back to its source. There can be no question of this and I find it difficult to believe that Robert Parry with all his intel contacts and experience would not be aware of this. Yet, there's absolutely no mention of this blindingly obvious point.

The Russians, of course, would have exactly the same information. So why all the talk about the Buk missile when the facts of 'who', 'what', 'when' and 'where' could be ascertained in a few seconds? Perhaps all the talk from Robert Parry of drunken Ukrainian soldiers firing the missile is to provide a 'cover your ass' explanation when the Russians present irrefutable proof that the Missile that shot down the Malaysian Airlines flight was fired by the Ukrainian Government forces.

From Veterans Today-

The total inability of the Administration to give the co-ordinates of this alleged rebel-controlled SA-17 launcher is telling. All that President Obama could say today was that the missile was fired from within a rebel-held area.

That, with respect, is an obvious lie, since the NSA would have overheads, as well as the ELINT data. If the attack genuinely came from a rebel-held area then you can bet your bottom dollar the Administration would be handing out the evidence.

Or perhaps there was no missile fired from the ground and all this talk of Buk missiles is a distraction away from what really happened and what really happened was impossible for the Novorossians to have done.

Another thing that is missing from Parry's article is any mention or question of why the airliner was over the war zone in the first place! Who decided to put it in the firing line? It couldn't possibly be the Novorossians or the Russians. Is that why this very pertinent question is not raised?

From Pepe Escobar-

A simple search at reveals that MH17 was in fact diverted 200 kilometers north from the usual flight path taken by Malaysia Airlines in the previous days - and plunged right in the middle of a war zone. Why? What sort of communication MH17 received from Kiev air control tower?

Kiev has been mute about it. Yet the answer would be simple, had Kiev released the Air Traffic Control recording of the tower talking to flight MH17; Malaysia did it after flight MH370 disappeared forever.

It won't happen; SBU security confiscated it. So much for getting an undoctored explanation on why MH17 was off its path, and what the pilots saw and said before the explosion.

So who could both influence or order MH-17 to fly over the war zone and have the facilities to shoot it down? There's only one answer to my mind, the Ukrainian junta. And given that Biden chairs the meetings with the junta when he meets with them, it is clear that the US admin is running the show in Ukraine making it close to impossible to believe that the Ukrainian junta would shoot down a passenger airline without clearing it with the US; if, indeed, they were not following orders from Washington. All of which implicates the US administration directly in the Ukrainian junta's actions. These two parties are the only ones with a motive - blame Russia and use that to start a war that will save the $US and the Kiev junta.

One thing is certain though, that it is preposterous to maintain that the Obama Administration is anything but complicit in every stage and aspect of this conflict in Ukraine. Given this intimate involvement from the beginning, it is reasonable to assume that the US is complicit in the downing of the flight MH-17, too, and everything Robert Parry raises is just distraction, one way or another, from that telling and damning conclusion.

The premise of his article is ridiculous. He is proposing that the US government is 'rushing to judgement' over its own premeditated actions.


Robert Parry

I know him personally. He is a rabid Obamanite. Just for what its worth.

The Hegelian Dialectic

Well, I guess you don't control the game unless you control both sides.

If the U.S. government tends

If the U.S. government tends to sway in one direction, then you can be certain that the opposite of the stories saga is the absolutely truthful facts. Same goes for the government controlled propaganda medias.

Back to front

Exactly, anon. I couldn't agree more.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.