March 12th, 2017 - Fort Russ News -
***
Denis Churilov - Born in Saint Petersburg, grew up traveling from place to place in Russia, from Chelyabinsk to Krasnodar region, and spent years living in Northern Kazakhstan. Moved to Australia in the mid-2000's. Graduated with a Bachelor of Behavioral Science (Psychology).
Follow us on Facebook!
Follow us on Twitter!
Donate!
- Analysis - by Denis Churilov for FRN -
[continued from part I]
So, in response to protests in the south and east of the country against the coup installed government, what did Kiev do?
They sent in tanks, helicopters and armed vehicles to repress the people:
Initially, the military campaign (labeled as “Anti-Terrorist Operation” by Kiev authorities) failed due to soldiers arriving on the sites and seeing just ordinary people, whom they couldn’t shoot, so they didn’t know what to do. It was later, when battalions formed from ultra-nationalist got involved, that’s when the blood got spilled. For instance, here is video-footage of Dnepr battalion repressing a referendum in the town of Krasnoarmeysk, killing at least one civilian in the process:
Here is another instance of Kiev military shooting at the crowd and killing civilians (filmed in Mariupol on the 2014 Victory Day):
That’s when the major escalation happened, forcing people to take weapons and stand up for themselves. Note, those were Kiev soldiers repressing locals' political will by force (that’s a crime that calls for a tribunal by itself), not “pro-Russian rebels” or “Putin’s thugs" advancing towards Kiev and killing Ukrainians on the way, let along mythical "Russian army invading Ukraine", as mainstream media often tries to portray the situation.
Also, it is a common view that the Odessa Massacre that occurred on 02.05.2014, during which neo-nazi burned nearly 50 people alive, served as the point of no return:
And here is the footage that shows pro-Maidan activists making Molotov cocktails that were used to set the building on fire:
Either way, it’s a civil war, ignited by the US-backed Kiev’s aggression towards its (former?) Eastern provinces.
Interestingly, the U. S. officials knew that the situation may develop into a civil war way back in 2008, as revealed by now leaked documents from official diplomatic channels. A confidential memo sent to the Joint Chief of Staff by William J. Burns (he used to be a U. S. ambassador to Russia) said the following (published by Wikileaks; dated 01.02.2008):
“Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region [!]. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence [!!!] or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."
Here is the link to the leaked memo:
This is a crucial point to be understood. The U. S. actually knew that if the “pro-Western” course is enforced by/on Kiev, it may lead to INTERNAL regional destabilisation and, at worst, a civil war (that is essentially what we have been observing happening there for over three years now).
The American officials knew about such possibility, yet they purposefully supported (both politically and financially) the Euromaidan movement (and all the neo-nazi radicals who stuck to it). As such, the US Senator John McCain was giving speeches in Maidan square in December 2013, assuring his support for the "revolution":
The now former US Assistant For Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland disclosed that the US has spend $5 billion on "assisting Ukraine with its European aspirations" (those are only the official figures):
And we also had a recorded phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, the current US Ambassador to Ukraine, in which they were openly handpicking the members of the new government shortly after the coup:
The US officials knew well of the risks, yet they were assertively pushing Ukraine towards the coup, supporting the opposition to Yankovich (and all the neo-nazi groups who got into the basket), the opposition forces that later overthrew the democratically elected president and then waged repressive military campaign against people who had a different opinion. A reasonable question to be asked: what does Russia (or Putin) have to do with the internal destabilisation of Ukraine that the mainstream media keeps talking about?
As for the “Russian invasion of Ukraine” accusations, it has been three years since those claims began to appear, and still there is no proper evidence to support them. No satellite data (it would have been abundant if the accusations were true; NATO and U. S. have been registering all the slightest moves made by the Russian military formations within the Russian territory, yet, no proper data of them crossing the border), no official video documentation, no verifiable video-footage made by journalists and/or locals (everyone has cell phones with cameras nowadays, and the Internet access is widespread in those regions). Also, don’t forget all the international journalists and observers (e. g. OSCE) who are being there constantly.
Just think about it for a second. Remember when Saudi Arabia began its intervention in Yemen in 2014? Remember the amount of data it generated instantly? Remember the last time the Israeli forces moved into Gaza on a large scale on 17.07.2014, and the uproar it caused instantly? A better example, if you actually want to know what Russian military intervention looks like, go back to 2008 and examine the Georgian conflict, when president Saakachvili attacked Tskhinvali and the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, so Russia had to retaliate. Better yet, think back to late 2015, when Russia began its military operation in Syria, with multiple satellite images and airstrike videos emerging within days. There has been nothing like that in the case of Ukraine.
The only things that have actually been properly documented moving from Russia to the region are the numerous humanitarian aid convoys (they are being checked by the OSCE):
Also, if the tale of Russian invasion of Ukraine is true, then why doesn’t Kiev also fight it in Crimea? Well, hopefully, the answer is obvious: that is because they know that if they go to Crimea, they will actually encounter the Russian troops, and that is not something they are able to face.
And, let’s be serious here, if Russian troops were really to intervene in Eastern Ukraine/Novorossia, they would have done it fast, as with the Georgian conflict, with many tanks, armoured and support vehicles moving through (with combined personnel of multiple thousands, all crossing the border at once), they would have used air support, with jets and helicopters flying over the region. That would be impossible to hide. And there would be no need to. The Crisis would be over in a couple of days time, in such case (not to put anyone down, but the Russian military forces objectively have more troops, they are better equipped and have a couple of newer toys in their arsenal).
Here is a good article that elaborates the inadequacy of the “Russia invaded Ukraine” narrative well:
Now, put yourself in the shoes of a chief editor that works for some big mainstream media outlet. How would you go about keeping the narrative in the absence of any proper evidence for months (or even years)? Well, the BBC once made an attempt by coming up with an article that explains the invisibility of Russian army by a military doctrine the BBC editorial named “Maskirovka”:
“Maskirovka” is an actual Russian word for disguise, it is often used in Western historiography in reference to the Soviet military deception manoeuvres on the battlefield, but it is not something that could potentially hide an entire army from satellites and multiple in-the-field observers for years. The BBC article itself is absurd; it’s like the author took a couple of names and dates from the history and began juggling them wildly, making bizarre extrapolations that have no correspondence to reality whatsoever.
The CNN weren’t that sophisticated, apparently, so they decided to just report that there are mobile crematoriums in Eastern Ukraine that Russians use to burn their dead soldiers to hide the evidence:
This story was picked up by numerous other newspapers and media outlets (such as the Business Insider, which has turned into a yellow-press paper in recent years, publishing the most bizarre junk “journalists” come up with). It is truly sad that those who work in the mainstream media have to go that low to justify their narrative, coming up with the most bizarre and absurd explanations.
As for the reports of spotting Russian military equipment in the region - those are among the most facile arguments one can come up with. Ukraine is a former Soviet state, and it uses the same weaponry systems as Russians do (with the exception that Russians have been able to implement a couple of new improvements since 1991; and a couple of new models too, such the Armata tank). There are stockpiles of Soviet military gear all over the Ukrainian territory. Back in the late-1980's and the early 1990's, following the Warsaw Pact dissolution, when all the Soviet military bases were drawn back home from East Germany and East-European countries, a huge amount of weaponry systems condensed at the periphery of the USSR (and then stayed there, because Russian politicians were too busy privatising state property during the 1990's to attend to this issue).
Needless to say that a significant portion of Soviet weaponry was produced in Ukraine (such as the famous T-72 tanks, which were assembled near the city of Kharkov). Arguments of such levels appeal to pure ignorance. “Aaahhh!!! A Russian T-72 tank is spotted in rebellious provinces! That proves that Russia supplies them with lethal aid! RUSSIAN AGGRESSION!!!1111”. Following that logic, Putin must also supply Kiev, because most of the weaponry systems they use on the battlefield are of Soviet design too.
Needless to say that a significant portion of Soviet weaponry was produced in Ukraine (such as the famous T-72 tanks, which were assembled near the city of Kharkov). Arguments of such levels appeal to pure ignorance. “Aaahhh!!! A Russian T-72 tank is spotted in rebellious provinces! That proves that Russia supplies them with lethal aid! RUSSIAN AGGRESSION!!!1111”. Following that logic, Putin must also supply Kiev, because most of the weaponry systems they use on the battlefield are of Soviet design too.
Now, to the issue of Russian citizens fighting among rebel forces in the region. Yes, there are Russian citizens who are fighting there. Nobody is denying that. But to use it as a proof of Russia destabilising Ukraine and fueling the conflict is, again, facile.
Yes, there are people from Russian participating in the conflict, but so are the mercenaries and volunteers from Poland, Germany, Serbia, Spain, Belarus, and the US, and they can be seen fighting on both sides:
Yes, there are people from Russian participating in the conflict, but so are the mercenaries and volunteers from Poland, Germany, Serbia, Spain, Belarus, and the US, and they can be seen fighting on both sides:
… and so on.
So, does it mean that all these countries, whose citizens fight in Eastern Ukraine/Novorossia, both with and against the rebels, have invaded Ukraine or otherwise destabilise the region? Unlikely.
The fact that there are more Russian citizens than citizens of any other country among the fighters is easily explained by the deep cultural ties between Ukraine (particularly its Eastern parts) and Russia. Hell, it used to be one country some mere 24 years ago, with no borders and people were moving back and forth easily. Half of all Russian families have relatives living in Ukraine, so, on social levels, Russians are deeply concerned about the Crisis, with the majority seeing the current Kiev government as an enemy, and many individuals are driven enough to help the rebels, with some even travelling there and joining their ranks.
It is possible that Russia did send some covert operatives into the region (it would be strange to assume that the Russian government wouldn't try to somehow regulate the conflict that is happening right at its borders), although there is no evidence that would stand a chance in court. But, even if Russia did try to regulate the conflict, would that make Putin/Russia bad? Hardly so, given that it wasn’t Putin who initiated the Crisis (this point has already been elaborated extensively in this essay).
But are there any external forces that fuel the Crisis? Yes, there are. The U. S. and NATO are sending the military aid to the Kiev forces and are doing so officially:
They also train the Kiev soldiers (the Canadian government does so as well):
So, let’s get it clear, the Western powers are actually doing what they are accusing Russia of, i. e. providing military aid and training for one of the sides in the conflict. They are doing so officially, yet, they accuse Russia of destabilising the regional situation, using it as a pretext for economic sanctions. Doesn’t that concern people in the West? Or is it just that the majority of people have no time nor analytical skills to see the blatant double standards and the dichotomy employed by the West, both diplomatically and in the mainstream media?
[continued in part III]
[continued in part III]
***
Denis Churilov - Born in Saint Petersburg, grew up traveling from place to place in Russia, from Chelyabinsk to Krasnodar region, and spent years living in Northern Kazakhstan. Moved to Australia in the mid-2000's. Graduated with a Bachelor of Behavioral Science (Psychology).
Follow us on Facebook!
Follow us on Twitter!
Donate!
from Fort Russ http://ift.tt/2mzBUgA
The Ukrainian Crisis Three Years On: An Autopsy of the Mainstream Media Discourse Pt. II [+Videos] - Like This Article
0 Response to "The Ukrainian Crisis Three Years On: An Autopsy of the Mainstream Media Discourse Pt. II [+Videos] - Like This Article"
Post a Comment