Ukraine, Neocons and Neonazis
- This topic has 10 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Harris&Ewing US Weather Bureau kiosque, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 1921 See, by now you would think that anyone who reads that all 31 US bank
[See the full post at: Ukraine, Neocons and Neonazis]§ 3.
We’re drowning in nonsense here, and we’re prepared to just die without even trying to swim?
Fat floats – may explain the obesity as well as isolating cerebral neurons from contact needed for the thinking process.
§ 5.
What is not is the two portraits of US girl power in Ukraine from the Guardian and Bloomberg that appeared over the past two days. That’s not innocent, that’s vile and bastardly lies. Victoria Nuland and Natalie Jaresko should not be praised by the western media, they should be taken apart bone by bone, because the roles they play are far too shady to stand up to our alleged democratic principles.
That is called professional courtesy, what one professional will do for another, the respect of status for status. Not one, from the black non-entity peace prizer in the White House; VP Joe Biden and fils; Hillary and Chuckles Clinton; the Vapid SOS John Kerry and her Victoria Nuland (and the thing Natalie Jaresko above); not to mention their supporting cast inhabiting the troika, NATO, and the lot in Brissels; are not professional prostitutes, it’s the only thing they know to do, don’t expect sow’s ears to become silk purses. Same goes for their portapotty (portaloo) press retinue. What’s not to love?
Somehow the cri de cœur is being heard in the wilderness, the answer may come in silent whisperings from that wilderness if one listens well enough. No answers are to be found in the brazen trumpeting of power, neither guidance from its echos nor ephemeral succor from its din.
Nudelman created the war. Nudelman invaded Ukraine. Now Nudelman accuses Putin of invading Ukraine and NOBODY QUESTIONS HER.
Chutzpah isn’t nearly strong enough. Gigachutzpah? Terachutzpah? Exachutzpah?
The Guardian?
The Guardian has been strongly anti-Putin and has adopted ‘propaganda’ reporting of Ukraine since at least this time last year. Most G’ commentary is in line with this stance except for Seamus Milne who is given occasional space for to write on the folly of our policy.The reason? Something to do with ‘Enlightenment’ view point and support for the EU as a vehicle for expansion of modernised ‘Enlightenment’ values. This is European liberal version of US ‘inevitable Progress’, ‘spreading of democracy’ – ‘freedom including of speech’ and etc. perhaps? e.g. “Anyone close to Ukraine understood that this was an incredible moment to take Ukraine forward in a way that it hadn’t gone quickly enough over the past 22 years,” she says.
best
Phil@ phil harris
Rest easy, The Guardian has been for some time a moll of the lads from Threadneedle Street. Only recently has she discovered that it pays to advertise. Find The Guardian now in her finest knickers across the street from BBC trying to attract their Johnnies. The idea there is actual reporting out of London went with Edward R. Murrow and the second world war’s blitz.
173 Airborne Brigade , paratrooper boots-on-the-ground landing about now in Ukraine.
https://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/04/4100
https://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/03/03/ukraine-russia-putin-war/24327263/Despite Russian Warnings, US Will Deploy a Battalion to Ukraine by the End of the Week
Unfortunately, too many lies in the article. Ukraine IS fighting Russia, although not all of it. But there are thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine, and there’s tremendous propaganda war waged by Russia against Ukraine (this article is actually a part of it).
Yes, the previous kleptokratic pro-Russian regime did drive Ukraine into bankrupcy. But no, Nuland didn’t create the popular uprizing against those bastards. At most, she might’ve helped with money.
Yes, some Ukrainian men are fleeing the draft. But no, not everyone. There are plenty of people serving, and plenty of people willing to defend the country. I’m not surprised Yaresko found a few that are willing to go back.
The author understands very little about the intricacies of Russian-Ukrainian fewd that’s lasted for centuries. That’s why his analysis is plain wrong. 700 years of bloodshed are essentially blamed on 2 ladies – Nuland and Yaresko. That’s a bit of an oversimplification, isn’t it? Given the wrong analysis, the conclusions are wrong as well. In the end, smart or not, Putin will lose. There’s no other way for a crazy maniac’s war against 40mln people to end.
As to the US aid – well, the people of Ukraine are dfeinitely greatful for it. But I understand any US citizen who is against helping, because it’s really his tax money that are spent in some obscure distant place. However, I, personally, believe that my tax money are better spent on helping Ukraine stand up to Putin, than on US fighting Putin one day. It’s just cheaper that way.There are no ‘good guys’ in this situation, there is only power, greed and propaganda. There are ‘bad guys’ and ‘worse guys’ (or girls). This is a clash of imperial ambitions, frighteningly reminiscent of the run up to WW1. Great powers face each other through client states and buffer zones, and with nasty proxy wars in the periphery. Ukraine has the misfortune to be strategically important for its rich soil and it’s status as an energy transit state, at a time when control over energy is increasingly critical. This is a highly dangerous situation with considerable potential to deteriorate into something much worse.
The previous government was obviously corrupt, but was also democratically elected. The situation was stable. Until Victoria Nuland changed that. There would be no war if it had not been for the US sponsored coup. Nobody suggested to blame a centuries long feud on a single person. But the key event that was calculated to start the current war can be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.