Ukraine proxy war re-ignites; NYT continues its role as state propaganda
Posted by Charles II on January 25, 2015
Robert Parry has a good piece on how the Rick Lyman and Andrew E. Kramer of The New York Times have done a new piece of state propaganda by decontextualizing the origins of the conflict:
One way the Times has falsified the Ukraine narrative is by dating the origins of the crisis to several months after the crisis actually began. So, the lead story in Saturday’s editions ignored the actual chronology of events and started the clock with the appearance of Russian troops in Crimea in spring 2014.
In other words, the story doesn’t start in fall 2013 with the extraordinary U.S. intervention in Ukrainian political affairs – spearheaded by American neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain – nor with the U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych and put one of Nuland’s chosen leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in as Prime Minister.
As I commented on the site, one could also start the story of this conflict in 1917. In that case, one would include Stalin’s brutal famine, created in part artificially, that led to mass deaths. A fully-accurate narrative of the Ukrainian crisis would state that the country does have a pro-western faction and a pro-Russian faction, that the pro-western faction resents the Russian colonial mindset but fails to appreciate that if it becomes free of Russia, it will become a Western colony, and that the pro-Russian regions are being prodded, encourage, and supplied by Russia. In other words, this may be a proxy conflict, but it has substantial support from both factions of the population.
A better antidote to the half-blind perspective of the New York Times is to bring another half-blind perspective from the other side and try to integrate the two. In that regard, I want to mention Slavyangrad and The Vineyard of the Saker, recommended by reader Jo6Pac. Slavyangrad has a big map of the hostilities that’s very useful. It shows how the pro-Russian offensive in the south would put the rebels within less than 100 miles of creating a land route between Russia and Crimea. It would give the Russians a friendly port much nearer to Crimea. The Vineyard links a pretty convincing film of a man in uniform–presumed to be in the Kiev army– who sounds like an Aussie and one might reasonably suspect of being a contractor supplied by the West. In the shelling of civilians in Mariupol, The Guardian blames it on rebels, while the Vineyard claims that the shells came from Kiev’s army. It’s just as amusing to hear The Saker talk about how professional and precise the pro-Russian artillery is, even though it’s supposedly fired by amateurs as it is to read The Guardian effectively blame the rebels for civilian deaths without providing any real evidence for culpability.
Are there Russian soldiers in there? Are there western soldiers in there? Probably yes to both. Neither Kiev’s army nor the pro-Russian militias would seem to have enough combat training or access to weapons to cause this much havoc on their own. What seems clear is that Russia has decided to re-supply the pro-Russian side and that the West is going to try to pretend that it has nothing to do with creating this proxy war. At what point is the Obama Administration going to decide that the Russians are dead serious? At what point is it going to occur to the Administration that it has other fish in the pan, fish which would have been much more easily fried with Russian help? And when will the NYT get so embarrassed by its reporting and the failure of American policy that it tells the Administration that it’s no longer going to serve as an organ of state propaganda? Based on the extensive Honduran experience documented on this blog, one would have to guess that the answer to those three questions is “Never.”
Nuclear war, anyone?
4 Responses to “Ukraine proxy war re-ignites; NYT continues its role as state propaganda”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.