How Politico Lies

How Politico Lies

Politico lies. A typical example is a February 5th article that’s marked «Opinion» but that’s loaded with falsehoods, omissions, and misrepresentations, so that it qualifies only as propaganda. Really: it’s blatant US propaganda against Russia.

In the way of a basic introduction to this article, its title is «Ukraine’ s Political Suicide», and it’s by Joerg Forbrig, who is identified as the «transatlantic fellow for Central and Eastern Europe at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin».

Forbrig opens his article about Ukraine by alleging that, «Ukraine’s fledgling democracy edged closer to dismembering itself this week, as one of the most reform-minded members of the government stepped down». The first lie there is that the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 was creating, or was even intended to create, a «fledgling democracy». Here’s the reality of it. Even the head of the private CIA firm Stratfor has called that overthrow «the most blatant coup in history». A coup is not perpetrated in order to install a ‘democracy’. It doesn’t install a «fledgling democracy».

Among the reasons why we know that this overthrow was a coup is that the US State Department official who on 4 February 2014 told the US Ambassador to Ukraine to get «Yats,» Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to be appointed to lead the country after the coup would be over, had her instruction carried out 22 days later, at the end of the coup. Furthermore, the groundwork for this coup had actually started being laid inside the US Embassy to Ukraine, back on 1 March 2013, so that the planning for it was really extensive. That’s almost a year in advance – and even that groundwork had to have followed after extensive planning, which moves the US intention to overthrow the existing leader, back to earlier than 1 March 2013.

Furthermore, the US overthrew not a dictator, but the freely and quite democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych. The US called him «corrupt,» and he was that – just like all post-Soviet leaders of Ukraine have been, but we didn’t overthrow any of the others. (Nor do we usually overthrow our own corrupt leaders – and certainly not with any coup.) Furthermore, even in America, a coup is considered to be an unacceptable way to replace America’s corrupt leaders.

Moreover, the coup that overthrew Yanukovych was extremely bloody, and the bloodshed was going on there for several weeks, before «Yats» was appointed to lead the country.

On top of all that, Yanukovych’s overthrow was in blatant violation of Ukrainian law. It was even unconstitutional.

But, perhaps worse than any of this, was that when the two regions of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych – the Donbass which had voted 90% for him, and Crimea which had voted 75% for him – refused to accept the authority of the new stooge-government, that newly installed stooge government then invaded the Donbass, and the United States Government declared that the stooge-regime was doing the right thing to demand the capitulation of the residents in the two rejectionist regions of the up-till-then-Ukraine. US President Barack Obama insisted on this conquest of the two rejectionist areas, even though his Secretary of State John Kerry was opposed to continuation and further extension of what had by then become a very bloody civil war.

In fact, the US Establishment were so determined to continue the bombing of the Donbass, so that they pressed the White House to increase and intensify the bombings, even beyond the use of firebombs against Donbass’s largest city, Donetsk.

Then, Forbrig (after several more misrepresentations) says, «Ukrainians hoped their country, under new leadership, would adopt democracy», but the reality is: that’s actually what they already had until the US coup. Though the residents in the areas that had voted over 70% for anti-Russian candidates didn’t like being ruled by candidates who weren’t  anti-Russian, Yanukovych’s victory was the authentic democratic result. He was the legitimate President of Ukraine. There was a natural support in those anti-Russian areas for «Maidan» demonstrations against Yanukovych, and Obama took full advantage of it, to provide the majority of the demonstrators that the US Embassy operation was able to muster as a cover-story for the coup in Western ‘news’ media, and so to splash US ‘news’ papers with images of ‘democratic’ public demonstrations calling for Yanukovych to resign, and the Yanukovych government (which was referred to instead by US propaganda as being the ‘Yanukovych regime’) to end before the next election – to end not by a democratic election but by a violent coup. But, as the racist anti-Russian fascists and trained marksmen revved-up their violence, US ‘news’ media paid less and less attention to what was happening at the «Maidan», because the ‘democratic’ cover-story didn’t fit well with those increasingly violent images.

Meanwhile, there was virtually no coverage of the leading Nazis whom the Obama regime hired to organize and carry out that bloodshed. Clearly, those were well-organized violent operations, but US ‘news’ media didn’t consider them to be worthy of showing or reporting, much less of investigating to determine who was behind them. To the extent that they were covered at all in the West, an underlying assumption was that the violence was being initiated by the «Berkut» or state security force, which was defending the government. And here is the recorded phone call where the investigator whom the EU hired to find out who was behind the bloodshed, reported back to them that it was «somebody from the new coalition» – i.e., somebody from the anti-Yanukovych forces – who had hired the snipers, and «that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides».

Then Forbrig said, «State reserves and assets had been looted by the previous government», but actually the US Government looted them immediately after the coup. Even before «Yats» became ensconced into power on February 26th of 2014, Stepan Kubik, a leader of the Right Sector party was appointed on February 24th to lead Ukraine’s central bank. And, then, on 7 March 2014, all the central bank’s gold bars were trucked at 2AM to the airport and flown to the US Federal Reserve in Manhattan. Later in the year, the official Ukrainian statistics acknowledged that the gold had somehow disappeared. That is looting, and the Obama regime did it. But that was merely the start, and the people that the US installed made it look only small by comparison with what followed.

Then Forbrig said that Ukraine’s current problems were because «Russia had attacked Ukraine, annexed Crimea, stoked separatism in Donbas, and terrorized the rest of the country». All of those were lies. Russia did not attack Ukraine; Crimea had been transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954 without any concern for the desires of the Crimeans; polls there showed overwhelming preference of Crimeans for – and self-identification with – Russia not Ukraine. The US and its allies discuss and debate the principle of self-determination of nations, regarding Scotland, and Catalonia, but when it comes to Crimea and the Donbass after the West had installed fascists in a violent Ukrainian coup, secession is alleged to be only by ‘terrorists’ (not by the residents there) and is dealt with in an «Anti Terrorist Operation» («ATO»), treating everyone who lives in the region that voted for secession as fair game in a free-fire zone to kill, so as to impose ‘democracy’ there. This is ‘Western democracy’ since 2014. (And the same is true regarding Syria, where Obama also opposes democracy while asserting that black is white and white is black.)

Those lies are highlights from merely the first 25% of that Politico ‘news’ report and commentary. But that’s enough to give an accurate idea of the extent and depth of the deception.

However, Politico’s lies are only part of a much broader and remarkably unanimous US and Western Establishment campaign to deceive their publics with these very same (and associated) lies. For example, on February 3rd, The New York Times headlined an editorial, «The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia» and said, of US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s quadrupling of US troops and weaponry to Russia’s border (and I add links here to disproof for each of their lies that were stated in these excerpts), «he makes a good case for deterring Russian aggression… It is undeniable that Russia has become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine… Deterring Russia is essential». They threw in, as an aside there, with no expansion nor explanation, the following actual fact, which makes clear the depravity of the US President’s mega-crime in this matter: «Under a 1997 agreement, NATO and Russia agreed not to permanently station troops or nuclear weapons on each other’s borders. The Americans say the plan would not violate this pledge because the troops will rotate, even though the effect will be a constant presence».

The NYT’s Editorial Board – basically the Ochs-Sulzberger family’s mouthpiece – seems to be assuming in this editorial that their readers are so incredibly stupid as to think that this blatant violation by the US of that 27 May 1997 «Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France» is worthy only of a passing mention in the context of «The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia». However, this crucial matter needs far more than that, and so something will be added about it here: The prior Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin, in 1997, was totally compliant with the desires of America’s aristocracy, and so he accepted meaningless phrases in that document, such as, «The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy – and do not foresee any future need to do so».

This subsumes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intention, no plan, and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of those members. That wasn’t a declaration of war against Russia, but only a statement that, at that particular moment, nuclear missiles against Moscow wouldn’t be placed on Russia’s border. For the future (which includes now), no commitment was being made. However, the Obama Administration doesn’t want even to draw attention to that 1997 document; so, instead of their saying that NATO has changed its mind on the matter, Obama’s people offer the absurdity that, «the plan would not violate this pledge because the troops will rotate, even though the effect will be a constant presence». As if the individual personal identity for each one of those individual soldiers were even germane to the matter of whether the total force-strength is being increased! This is merely playing the public as fools.

The American aristocracy’s basic position is that they’ve got the power and will grab whatever they want, whenever they decide to do so. The change since that ‘agreement’ (not even a treaty) in 1997 is that they’re now getting much closer to the grab-time, and the closer they get, the more defensive measures that Russia will take. And, as Russia does so, the US aristocracy will accuse Russia of ‘yet more aggression’.

In the United States, all of the mainstream press lie in unison regarding international matters, and much of the ‘alternative’ press mixes those standard lies in with ones that the given ‘news’ site adds in order to provide the given site’s distinctive spicing (tasting very different on, say, Rush Limbaugh, than on Rachel Maddow), so as to hold the given market-niche within the aristocracy’s more-basic framework. Only around a dozen sites report the truth unfiltered by the Establishment’s (or any other) talking-points (the lies that are required in order for a ‘news’ person to be able to succeed in this Orwellian nation), but all of those few are firmly outside the mainstream, and receive no funding nor support from any billionaires.

None of that lying is constructive for democracy, and all of it could even end in nuclear war. What Russia does for its defense is labelled ‘threatening’ by the West, and then serves as an excuse for tightening the noose around Russia even more. It’s a dangerous game, and no one knows or honestly can say when or how it will end.

So: how does Politico lie? It lies like almost all of America’s ‘news’ media do. That’s because it lies with the same international agenda that America’s aristocracy require.

Tags: Crimea  Russia  Ukraine  US