Not since Blair's "New World Order" speech after 9/11, which was wiped from
every web site and newspaper archive to avoid offending the American militias, have we witnessed such tight control of the media as in the Russian intervention in the Ukraine - the Ukrainian Crisis.
The facts of the Ukrainian Crisis are simple, in 2008 Ukraine and Georgia signed up to a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). The Russian reaction to this agreement was similar to the way England would react to an independent Scotland agreeing to a mutual defence agreement with the Russians, England would utterly reject the prospect of Russian submarines based at Faslane and would seek to destabilise the Scot's government. In fact the Russian reaction was surprisingly calm compared with the US reaction to Cuba providing military facilities for the Soviets in the 1960s. What did the Russians do?
Within a year the Russians invaded Georgia.
Within a year of the Ukrainian Parliament approving the MAP in February 2009 the Russians helped replace the Ukrainian president. Russia's new man in the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, made numerous statements to the effect that Ukraine would not pursue NATO membership.
On 23rd February Oleksandr Turchynov replaced Yanukovitch as interim president and the Russians believe that the new Ukrainian government will ask for a NATO MAP again (See Guardian/Observer article). This fear is the cause of the Russian intervention and the Ukrainian Crisis.
So how has the media been controlled? Apart from the Observer article no-one is mentioning Ukraine's application to join NATO. The Western press and media in general are telling us that Russia's ire has been provoked by the prospect of an EU-Ukraine trade agreement. The Russian press has an entirely different view:
"So we’ve known for quite a long time that NATO looks toward Ukraine as a key element in its expansionist policy and its aggressive assault against Russia and this will only continue, only escalate now that the so-called government in Kiev is at their mercy." Russia Today 28/02/14.
How is this control of the media effected? How could Blair's speech be edited out of history globally? How could even Al Jazeera ignore the NATO dimension in the Ukraine-Russia crisis?
The EU mission to the Ukraine was initially trying to get a compromise agreement between Yanukovitch and the protestors. The American reaction to this was strange, with the US Secretary of State for Europe, Victoria Nuland, pursuing a much harder line. The Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) seems to have intercepted a discussion on a mobile phone between Nuland and the US Ambassador to the Ukraine in which she says of EU negotiations: "Fuck the EU". Apparently Nuland apologised for this statement, rashly confirming the US manipulation of Ukrainian politics. Shortly after this the EU pushed for the Ukraine to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement which precipitated the Maidan Protests, the coup in the Ukraine and the Civil War (see "The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine"). So what the hell are the Americans and now the EU up to?
Incidentally, The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (Full Text) does not commit anyone to military intervention in the Ukraine. It does, however, commit Russia to respect the independence of the Ukraine and Russia's reneging on the Memorandum shows that the Russians must not be trusted. The moral of the story is that any modern state that wishes to retain its independence cannot give up its nuclear weapons. No other nuclear armed state will intervene militarily if a nuclear power is on the rampage.
Ukraine will only be free if it cedes a considerable proportion of the south east of the Ukraine to Russia. The original settlement in 1990 should never have included the Russian areas. Ruthenia should be resurrected:
Crimea was Tatar until the Russian Empire and then Stalin deported everyone.
The facts of the Ukrainian Crisis are simple, in 2008 Ukraine and Georgia signed up to a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). The Russian reaction to this agreement was similar to the way England would react to an independent Scotland agreeing to a mutual defence agreement with the Russians, England would utterly reject the prospect of Russian submarines based at Faslane and would seek to destabilise the Scot's government. In fact the Russian reaction was surprisingly calm compared with the US reaction to Cuba providing military facilities for the Soviets in the 1960s. What did the Russians do?
Within a year the Russians invaded Georgia.
Within a year of the Ukrainian Parliament approving the MAP in February 2009 the Russians helped replace the Ukrainian president. Russia's new man in the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, made numerous statements to the effect that Ukraine would not pursue NATO membership.
On 23rd February Oleksandr Turchynov replaced Yanukovitch as interim president and the Russians believe that the new Ukrainian government will ask for a NATO MAP again (See Guardian/Observer article). This fear is the cause of the Russian intervention and the Ukrainian Crisis.
So how has the media been controlled? Apart from the Observer article no-one is mentioning Ukraine's application to join NATO. The Western press and media in general are telling us that Russia's ire has been provoked by the prospect of an EU-Ukraine trade agreement. The Russian press has an entirely different view:
"So we’ve known for quite a long time that NATO looks toward Ukraine as a key element in its expansionist policy and its aggressive assault against Russia and this will only continue, only escalate now that the so-called government in Kiev is at their mercy." Russia Today 28/02/14.
How is this control of the media effected? How could Blair's speech be edited out of history globally? How could even Al Jazeera ignore the NATO dimension in the Ukraine-Russia crisis?
The EU mission to the Ukraine was initially trying to get a compromise agreement between Yanukovitch and the protestors. The American reaction to this was strange, with the US Secretary of State for Europe, Victoria Nuland, pursuing a much harder line. The Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) seems to have intercepted a discussion on a mobile phone between Nuland and the US Ambassador to the Ukraine in which she says of EU negotiations: "Fuck the EU". Apparently Nuland apologised for this statement, rashly confirming the US manipulation of Ukrainian politics. Shortly after this the EU pushed for the Ukraine to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement which precipitated the Maidan Protests, the coup in the Ukraine and the Civil War (see "The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine"). So what the hell are the Americans and now the EU up to?
Incidentally, The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (Full Text) does not commit anyone to military intervention in the Ukraine. It does, however, commit Russia to respect the independence of the Ukraine and Russia's reneging on the Memorandum shows that the Russians must not be trusted. The moral of the story is that any modern state that wishes to retain its independence cannot give up its nuclear weapons. No other nuclear armed state will intervene militarily if a nuclear power is on the rampage.
Ukraine will only be free if it cedes a considerable proportion of the south east of the Ukraine to Russia. The original settlement in 1990 should never have included the Russian areas. Ruthenia should be resurrected:
 |
| Ruthenia (dark grey): Courtesy Wikipedia |
Crimea was Tatar until the Russian Empire and then Stalin deported everyone.
Comments
These posts are truly worthwhile for those of us who would like to see the United Kingdom continue to exist as an independent nation that pursues rational policies in the interests of the overwhelming majority of its citizens and residents.
War in Georgia was nothing, but the answer to Georgian aggression to Osetia accompanied with mass-killing of civil population as well as russian UNO observers.
The fact that half of Ukraine is violently unhappy with the government, whether it is the government of Yanukovitch or the present interim government, shows that the current borders are a mistake committed in haste when modern Ukraine was created. All interested parties should be pushing for a referendum in Ukraine on whether the various regions wish to remain Ukrainian.