Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative

Scott

Scott

Well-known member
Contributor
I've decided it would be good to make a thread of this article here. The translated article I quote below was posted back in April, with the original french article posted in March, but to date, I have not seen a more succinct article that explains what led up to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I was about to post the following excerpt in another thread but came to the conclusion that it would make more sense to simply make a thread of this and then just reference this thread when the subject of Russia's motivation for starting its military operation is brought up. I will note that in Putin's speech, he gives 2 reasons for his military operation, only one of which was the situation in Donbass, the other being Ukraine's wish to become part of NATO and the U.S.'s wish to make it so. However, as evidenced by Putin's negligible reaction to Sweden and Finland possibly joining NATO soon, I believe that the Ukrainian government's 8 year war in the Donbass region, a lot of whose residents are either ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and/or have close ties to Russia, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The original article is in french, but it was translated and posted in Scheerpost. They apparently mistook his working with NATO to mean that he was a former NATO military analyst instead of a former Swiss Intelligence Officer. Regardless, I believe his knowledge of the situation speaks for itself. Alright, with that said, here's an excerpt from the article in question...


**
Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continue. The Russian Parliament is alarmed and on February 15 asks Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refuses.


On February 17, President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.

[snip]

Number-of-Explosions-in-Donbass-19-20-February-2022.jpg

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers. from the Donbass being run over.
**

Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
A survey by Pew Research Center found that in eastern Ukraine 58% of Russian speakers wanted the country to remain united, while 27% thought regions should be allowed to secede if they wished.
https://web.archive.org/web/2014050...es-Ukraine-Russia-Report-FINAL-May-8-2014.pdf

That was in 2014. How many still see themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian after Putin’s "special operation" is anybody’s guess.
Click to expand...


There's a lot of evidence that many Eastern Ukrainians have gotten quite tired of having their homes bombed by the Ukrainian military. This would explain the results of the referendums held in the 4 regions of Ukraine where Russia held significant control of land. Now, I know that the western narrative is that these referendums were shams, but there are reporters I trust who were on the ground in eastern Ukraine at the time, including Eva Bartlett and Patrick Lancaster. Wayne Cristaudo, who I hadn't heard of until now, but who published an article in the same place that Jacques Baud originally published his, wrote an article yesterday on the western narrative that the referendums in these Eastern Ukrainian regions were shams. Quoting from his article:

**
November 1, 2022 Wayne Cristaudo

Every mainstream media outlet described the referenda in September in the Donetsk, Lugansk People’s Republics (LPR and DPR), Kherson Region and part of Zaporozhye as a “sham” and therefore “rigged.” The results were certainly not what one finds in Western style party political contestations:

DPR: Turnout 97.51%, and 99.23% voted for the integration of the Republic into the Russian Federation.
LPR: Turnout 92.6%, and 98.42% voted for the integration of the Republic into the Russian Federation.
Kherson region: 76.86% turnout, and 87.05% voted for the integration of the region into the Russian Federation.
Zaporozhye region: 85.4% turnout, with 93.11% voting in favour of the region’s integration into the Russian Federation.

So, it is very easy to pass these results off as “rigged” to an audience that has not investigated beyond what main stream Western media choose to report. But to equate what was going on there with what is going on in the West is sheer idiocy. To see why the vote went the way it did, follow the reports of Patrick Lancaster, Eva Bartlett, Graham Phillips, or others on the ground; or if you don’t trust them just consider how deeply entrenched in 2010 the support for Yanukovych was in these areas (around 90%), and how ethnic Russians had been treated since the Maidan, and who therefore fled Eastward into these regions (a million or so fled to Russia).
**

Full article here:
The Narrative of Sham Elections | The Postil Magazine
 
According to the 2001 census, the proportion of people in eastern Ukraine whose first language is Russian ranges from 24.9% to 74.9% by region:

450px-Ukraine_census_2001_Russian.svg.png



Comparing this with the referendum results, which range from 87.05% to 99.23% for joining Russia, it appears that a large number of “ethnic Ukrainians” must have voted in favor. A triumph for Putin’s charisma, perhaps? :dunno:
 
Phoenyx said:
There's a lot of evidence that many Eastern Ukrainians have gotten quite tired of having their homes bombed by the Ukrainian military. This would explain the results of the referendums held in the 4 regions of Ukraine where Russia held significant control of land. Now, I know that the western narrative is that these referendums were shams, but there are reporters I trust who were on the ground in eastern Ukraine at the time, including Eva Bartlett and Patrick Lancaster. Wayne Cristaudo, who I hadn't heard of until now, but who published an article in the same place that Jacques Baud originally published his, wrote an article yesterday on the western narrative that the referendums in these Eastern Ukrainian regions were shams. Quoting from his article:

**
November 1, 2022 Wayne Cristaudo

Every mainstream media outlet described the referenda in September in the Donetsk, Lugansk People’s Republics (LPR and DPR), Kherson Region and part of Zaporozhye as a “sham” and therefore “rigged.” The results were certainly not what one finds in Western style party political contestations:

DPR: Turnout 97.51%, and 99.23% voted for the integration of the Republic into the Russian Federation.
LPR: Turnout 92.6%, and 98.42% voted for the integration of the Republic into the Russian Federation.
Kherson region: 76.86% turnout, and 87.05% voted for the integration of the region into the Russian Federation.
Zaporozhye region: 85.4% turnout, with 93.11% voting in favour of the region’s integration into the Russian Federation.

So, it is very easy to pass these results off as “rigged” to an audience that has not investigated beyond what main stream Western media choose to report. But to equate what was going on there with what is going on in the West is sheer idiocy. To see why the vote went the way it did, follow the reports of Patrick Lancaster, Eva Bartlett, Graham Phillips, or others on the ground; or if you don’t trust them just consider how deeply entrenched in 2010 the support for Yanukovych was in these areas (around 90%), and how ethnic Russians had been treated since the Maidan, and who therefore fled Eastward into these regions (a million or so fled to Russia).
**

Full article here:
The Narrative of Sham Elections | The Postil Magazine
Click to expand...

You doubling down on that Putin cock sucking?
 
Phoenyx said:
I've decided it would be good to make a thread of this article here. The translated article I quote below was posted back in April, with the original french article posted in March, but to date, I have not seen a more succinct article that explains what led up to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I was about to post the following excerpt in another thread but came to the conclusion that it would make more sense to simply make a thread of this and then just reference this thread when the subject of Russia's motivation for starting its military operation is brought up. I will note that in Putin's speech, he gives 2 reasons for his military operation, only one of which was the situation in Donbass, the other being Ukraine's wish to become part of NATO and the U.S.'s wish to make it so. However, as evidenced by Putin's negligible reaction to Sweden and Finland possibly joining NATO soon, I believe that the Ukrainian government's 8 year war in the Donbass region, a lot of whose residents are either ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and/or have close ties to Russia, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The original article is in french, but it was translated and posted in Scheerpost. They apparently mistook his working with NATO to mean that he was a former NATO military analyst instead of a former Swiss Intelligence Officer. Regardless, I believe his knowledge of the situation speaks for itself. Alright, with that said, here's an excerpt from the article in question...


**
Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continue. The Russian Parliament is alarmed and on February 15 asks Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refuses.


On February 17, President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.

[snip]

View attachment 23599

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers. from the Donbass being run over.
**

Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost
Click to expand...

OK feather brain!

Presidents of the United states are provided TOP SECRET intelligence by our CIA, FBI, State Department, and Justice department and many other Federal Agencies.

Duh! Who would have thunk it? RIGHT? :laugh:

So you can put your conspiracy theory to rest regarding how Biden knew about Putin's invasion in advance.

Satellite images saw the Russian Buildup to the border many weeks in advance before the first shot was ever fired.

Make sure your two ass-kissing rubber stamping idiots to your ignorance gets the message too! OK?

The Following 2 Users Said Thank You to Phoenyx For his Post based upon ignorance- and ignorance alone:

dukkie DO DO (Today), Gropemaster (Today)
 
Last edited:
Tranquillus in Exile said:
According to the 2001 census, the proportion of people in eastern Ukraine whose first language is Russian ranges from 24.9% to 74.9% by region:

450px-Ukraine_census_2001_Russian.svg.png



Comparing this with the referendum results, which range from 87.05% to 99.23% for joining Russia, it appears that a large number of “ethnic Ukrainians” must have voted in favor. A triumph for Putin’s charisma, perhaps? :dunno:
Click to expand...


For starters, I think we need to acknowledge that the percentages may have changed since 2001- we're now 2022, so 21 years, 8 years of which parts of eastern Ukraine were engaged in a civil war with western Ukraine's military. Furthermore, there were referendums in only 4 eastern Ukraine regions, and I think it's important to note that I don't think Russia fully controlled any of the regions at the time of the votes, so only the parts that Russia controlled were voting. Secondly, Donetsk and Lugansk have more Russia speakers than any other eastern Ukrainian regions aside from Crimea, which had a referendum on rejoining Russia back in 2014 and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. They're the regions furthest to the right, 74.9 and 68.8 in your map above.


Finally, let's not forget what former Ukrainian President said about how things would be for eastern Ukrainians:


Zaporizhia comes in fourth place in terms of highest percentage of Russian speakers in your map at 48.2. The last one, Kherson, is the most anomalous, with only 24.9% on your map. It would have been great if the western reporters who were there had been paid by western governments to find out more on all of this, but instead they were villified by the western press. That being said, there were some brave accounts, for instance by journalists Eva Bartlett and Patrick Lancaster. Here's one from Eva Bartlett, explaining how people were feeling at the time of the referendum in Donetsk:

https://odysee.com/@EvaKareneBartlett:9/my-interview-from-donetsk-on-the:0
 
evince said:
https://www.thepostil.com/the-narrative-of-sham-elections/


This is a racist site


They offer up a book called


The case for Christian nationalism


It’s what they call smart reading
Click to expand...


About the only thing I knew about the site is that it's the same site where former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud first wrote his article on the false narrative that the west's been peddling in regards to the Ukraine war. I'm not even Christian, so doubt I'd have any interest in any Christian books from them, but this doesn't take away Jacques Baud's great article.
 
artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.
Click to expand...

clearly Ukraine (Kyiv)broke the Minsk II agreement
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...e921da-93f7-11ec-bb31-74fc06c0a3a5_story.html
Beyond that there were at least three key disputes. The first was sequencing, in particular who should be in control when elections were held. Still more difficult was that the deal says the special status for the Donbas region, and arguably Ukraine’s constitutional restructuring, have to be made “in consultation and agreement with” the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, through a specially formed group. Potentially the most dangerous dispute though, was over the extent of the special status territory, which was left undefined. The separatist leaders said it should include all of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, more than half of which remains under Kyiv’s control. Now that in Moscow’s eyes they have legal standing to make those claims as the leaders of sovereign states, and to invite Russia troops to help, that ambiguity creates a significant risk of military escalation.

Russia saw Minsk as a deal Ukraine signed and was obliged to fulfill, returning the Donbas to Kyiv’s control while ensuring the safety and rights of the area’s citizens, as many as 800,000 of which have now received Russian passports. That’s roughly 20% to 40% of the population, depending on estimates. Moscow also saw the accords as creating wide autonomy for Donbas and as a means to federalize Ukraine, making it in practice impossible for the country to join Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union. At a February meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Russia complained specifically about a Ukrainian pledge that “none of Ukraine’s regions will be able to veto state-wide decisions,” and that France, Germany and the U.S. had failed to pressure Ukraine to implement the agreement. Kremlin officials didn’t define the form this federalization should take, but Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s Ukraine adviser until 2020, said after leaving office that Minsk II was written to give Ukraine “symbolic sovereignty” over the east, of the kind the British monarch exercises over Canada, or Australia.

What about Ukraine?

Ukraine passed a law on “decentralization” as required by the Minsk agreement, but it was not negotiated with the separatists, seen by Kyiv as Moscow’s proxies, and was therefore rejected by Russia. The government says it is committed to implementing the accords, just not as Russia interprets them. It prepared draft bills for that purpose but insisted that security should be ensured first. Speaking out of turn, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov went further, telling the Associated Press in January that fulfilling the Minsk accords, “signed under a Russian gun barrel,” would destroy Ukraine as a country. Even a limited effort to implement the accords in 2015 led to violent protests in Kyiv. A December 2021 poll found that 75% of Ukrainians thought the Minsk accords should either be amended or abandoned. Just 12% thought they should be implemented.
 
dukkha said:
clearly Ukraine (Kyiv)broke the Minsk II agreement
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...e921da-93f7-11ec-bb31-74fc06c0a3a5_story.html
Beyond that there were at least three key disputes. The first was sequencing, in particular who should be in control when elections were held. Still more difficult was that the deal says the special status for the Donbas region, and arguably Ukraine’s constitutional restructuring, have to be made “in consultation and agreement with” the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, through a specially formed group. Potentially the most dangerous dispute though, was over the extent of the special status territory, which was left undefined. The separatist leaders said it should include all of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, more than half of which remains under Kyiv’s control. Now that in Moscow’s eyes they have legal standing to make those claims as the leaders of sovereign states, and to invite Russia troops to help, that ambiguity creates a significant risk of military escalation.

Russia saw Minsk as a deal Ukraine signed and was obliged to fulfill, returning the Donbas to Kyiv’s control while ensuring the safety and rights of the area’s citizens, as many as 800,000 of which have now received Russian passports. That’s roughly 20% to 40% of the population, depending on estimates. Moscow also saw the accords as creating wide autonomy for Donbas and as a means to federalize Ukraine, making it in practice impossible for the country to join Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union. At a February meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Russia complained specifically about a Ukrainian pledge that “none of Ukraine’s regions will be able to veto state-wide decisions,” and that France, Germany and the U.S. had failed to pressure Ukraine to implement the agreement. Kremlin officials didn’t define the form this federalization should take, but Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s Ukraine adviser until 2020, said after leaving office that Minsk II was written to give Ukraine “symbolic sovereignty” over the east, of the kind the British monarch exercises over Canada, or Australia.

What about Ukraine?

Ukraine passed a law on “decentralization” as required by the Minsk agreement, but it was not negotiated with the separatists, seen by Kyiv as Moscow’s proxies, and was therefore rejected by Russia. The government says it is committed to implementing the accords, just not as Russia interprets them. It prepared draft bills for that purpose but insisted that security should be ensured first. Speaking out of turn, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov went further, telling the Associated Press in January that fulfilling the Minsk accords, “signed under a Russian gun barrel,” would destroy Ukraine as a country. Even a limited effort to implement the accords in 2015 led to violent protests in Kyiv. A December 2021 poll found that 75% of Ukrainians thought the Minsk accords should either be amended or abandoned. Just 12% thought they should be implemented.
Click to expand...

I'd seen that article before. It's got some good points, but it leaves a lot out too. I think an article from Aaron Mate does a good job of pointing out some of what the Washington Post article left out:

**
“Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.”

Peace could only come, Cohen stressed, on one condition. “[Zelensky] can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back,” he said. “Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war. So the stakes are enormously high.”


The subsequent impeachment trial, and bipartisan US policy since, has made clear that Washington has had no interest in having Zelensky’s back, and every interest in fueling the Donbas war that he had been elected to end. The overwhelming message from Congress, fervently amplified across the US media (including progressive outlets) with next to no dissent, was that when it comes to Ukraine’s civil war, the US saw Ukraine’s far-right as allies, and its civilians as cannon fodder.
**

Full article:
Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost
 
Phoenyx said:
Not off to a good start. As I've mentioned to others here, as soon as I see a post that starts insulting me in some way, I tend to tune out.
Click to expand...

AH! Come on! We men insult each other here 1,000's of times a day- WE DON'T REALLY MEAN IT!

Women, now they normally compliment each other here every day- THEY DON'T MEAN IT EITHER! :laugh:

Sincerely, I apologize to you personally- I'm sorry!

And I'll never insult you again! I promise!

You may be a breath of fresh air around here! AND WE CERTAINLY CAN ALL USE A LITTLE OF THAT!

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
The only diplomatic way out of this would be to have a genuine referendum with proper international supervision on the future of the eastern Ukraine oblasts and Crimea. Obviously that couldn’t be done during an active war when a large part of the population has fled. Also, both Ukraine and Russia would have to go along with it, and I don’t think either would.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/26/russia-battle-in-donbas-continues

What we saw in September wasn’t remotely plausible, whatever correspondents for RT say. It was a fig leaf for Russia to annex these territories – then it could claim that an attack on, say, Kherson was an attack on Russia. I doubt if Putin expected more than a handful of people outside Russia to buy this charade. A handful duly did. As I am not familiar with their thinking, I will not comment on their motives.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Phoenyx said:
Geeko Sportivo said:
OK feather brain!
Click to expand...

Not off to a good start. As I've mentioned to others here, as soon as I see a post that starts insulting me in some way, I tend to tune out.
Click to expand...

AH! Come on! We men insult each other here 1,000's of times a day- WE DON'T REALLY MEAN IT!

Women, now they normally compliment each other here every day- THEY DON'T MEAN IT EITHER! :laugh:

Sincerely, I apologize to you personally- I'm sorry!

And I'll never insult you again! I promise!

You may be a breath of fresh air around here! AND WE CERTAINLY CAN ALL USE A LITTLE OF THAT!

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being sincere, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll even continue down the post where you started with that feather brain bit...

Geeko Sportivo said:
Presidents of the United states are provided TOP SECRET intelligence by our CIA, FBI, State Department, and Justice department and many other Federal Agencies.

Duh! Who would have thunk it? RIGHT? :laugh:

So you can put your conspiracy theory to rest regarding how Biden knew about Putin's invasion in advance.

Satellite images saw the Russian Buildup to the border many weeks in advance before the first shot was ever fired.
Click to expand...


Sure, but having troops on the border doesn't mean they were going to attack. I think it was more trying to signal to Ukraine to quit saying things like they were going to retake Crimea. After reading Jacques Baud's article, it seems the key trigger point was the Ukranian military's assault on the Donbass region. It was Ukraine's massing of troops on the Donbass region border that got Russia's lower house of Parliament so concerned that they urged Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk republics on February 15th. Putin still clung to the idea that diplomatic efforts could still save the day, but the very -next- day, the Ukrainian military started its military assault on the Donbass region, which Jacques Baud made clear by citing the OCSE data. It was only after 6 days of this renewed assault that Putin finally decided that he needed to recognize these Republics and promise to defend them, on February 21st. He also gave an additional 2-3 days (some believe the special military operation really started on February 23rd at night) before going ordering his troops into Ukraine. It makes me wonder if perhaps he thought that simply letting the world know that he was willing to defend these republics militarily might be enough to get Ukraine's military to back off. No dice. And so Russia's military operation began.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
The only diplomatic way out of this would be to have a genuine referendum with proper international supervision on the future of the eastern Ukraine oblasts and Crimea. Obviously that couldn’t be done during an active war when a large part of the population has fled. Also, both Ukraine and Russia would have to go along with it, and I don’t think either would.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that the referendum wasn't genuine, but I have no problem with the idea of doing it again. More voting, less killing certainly has a good ring to it, I think. Elon Musk also thought the referendums should be done again, with more international observers. I decided it would be good to make a thread out of an article agreeing with Elon Musk's stance:
Elon Musk Is Right, The Russia-Ukraine War Needs To End | The Federalist


Tranquillus in Exile said:
What we saw in September wasn’t remotely plausible, whatever correspondents for RT say.
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that?
 
Phoenyx said:
Not sure if you're being sincere, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll even continue down the post where you started with that feather brain bit...




Sure, but having troops on the border doesn't mean they were going to attack. I think it was more trying to signal to Ukraine to quit saying things like they were going to retake Crimea. After reading Jacques Baud's article, it seems the key trigger point was the Ukranian military's assault on the Donbass region. It was Ukraine's massing of troops on the Donbass region border that got Russia's lower house of Parliament so concerned that they urged Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk republics on February 15th. Putin still clung to the idea that diplomatic efforts could still save the day, but the very -next- day, the Ukrainian military started its military assault on the Donbass region, which Jacques Baud made clear by citing the OCSE data. It was only after 6 days of this renewed assault that Putin finally decided that he needed to recognize these Republics and promise to defend them, on February 21st. He also gave an additional 2-3 days (some believe the special military operation really started on February 23rd at night) before going ordering his troops into Ukraine. It makes me wonder if perhaps he thought that simply letting the world know that he was willing to defend these republics militarily might be enough to get Ukraine's military to back off. No dice. And so Russia's military operation began.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to sense that you are a Russian/Putin sympathizer.

If that is true, I'm probably going to save my words- BECAUSE MY WORDS WOULD MEAN NOTHING TO YOU- RUSSIA- OR POOTY PIE!

Let me know!

Thanks!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I'm starting to sense that you are a Russian/Putin sympathizer.

If that is true, I'm probably going to save my words- BECAUSE MY WORDS WOULD MEAN NOTHING TO YOU- RUSSIA- OR POOTY PIE!

Let me know!

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that western propaganda has gotten people to the point that anyone criticizing or even questioning the western mainstream narrative is labelled as a "Putin sympathizer"?
 
Phoenyx said:
I'd seen that article before. It's got some good points, but it leaves a lot out too. I think an article from Aaron Mate does a good job of pointing out some of what the Washington Post article left out:

**
“Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.”

Peace could only come, Cohen stressed, on one condition. “[Zelensky] can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back,” he said. “Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war. So the stakes are enormously high.”


The subsequent impeachment trial, and bipartisan US policy since, has made clear that Washington has had no interest in having Zelensky’s back, and every interest in fueling the Donbas war that he had been elected to end. The overwhelming message from Congress, fervently amplified across the US media (including progressive outlets) with next to no dissent, was that when it comes to Ukraine’s civil war, the US saw Ukraine’s far-right as allies, and its civilians as cannon fodder.
**

Full article:
Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost
Click to expand...

"degrade Russia" "Putin has to go" an other statements back that up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top