Sunday, October 05, 2014

Irresponsible NYT Putin Bashing

Irresponsible NYT Putin Bashing

by Stephen Lendman

A previous article called The Times a machine for manufacturing Big Lies. It did so for good reason.

It buries hard truths on issues mattering most. It substitutes managed news misinformation. 

It does so repeatedly. Consistently. Disgracefully. When it comes to US/Russian relations, Obama's imperial designs go unexplained. 

Putin is public enemy No. 1. No matter his championing peace and stability. His going all-out for them. 

His cooperative, peaceful relations with all countries. His observance of rule of law principles. His overwhelming domestic popularity in contrast to Obama's lowest in his presidency.

It doesn't matter. Times correspondents, contributors and editors support the worst of US policies. Responsible Russian ones are bashed.

Anti-Russian propaganda rages. It's relentless. Vile. Shameless. Irresponsible. Typical Times. In late August, its editors headlined "Mr. Putin Tests the West in Ukraine," saying:

"The evidence has been mounting for some time, but there is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine, not as volunteers, as the rebel commander in Donetsk would have the world believe, but in units equipped with mobile artillery and heavy military equipment."

Nothing NATO says is reliable. It's US-controlled. Like The Times, it's a lying machine. Big Ones repeat ad nauseam.  

It didn't matter. Times editors quoted NATO Brig. General Nico Tak. He lied claiming "significant (Russian military) interference" in Ukraine.

He ludicrously said over 1,000 Russian soldiers operate inside the country's Southeast. NONE! Repeat NONE operate there. 

Volunteers from various countries participate on both sides. Times editors didn't explain.

"(B)y any name," they said, nonexistent "Russian aggression against Ukraine (represents) unacceptable escalation."

No evidence whatever suggests it. Times editors know it. They lie for power. They support Washington's killing machine.

They turn truth on Russia on its head. Reality is polar opposite their Big Lies.

They disgracefully accused Putin of "play(ing) his dangerous game in Ukraine with cunning and deceit…" A litany of other Big Lies followed.

They ignored Washington's responsibility for ousting democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych. Murdering scores of Kiev civilians and police in the process.

Replacing him with fascist putschists. Calling their illegitimate government democratic.

Calling Southeastern Ukrainian freedom fighters "terrorists" for demanding real democracy. Bashing Putin for being on the right side of history. Disgracing themselves in the process.

On September 5, Times editors featured Brenda Shaffer's op-ed headlined "Russia's Next Land Grab." She's on sabbatical from Haifa University.

She's currently a visiting Georgetown University researcher. She's irresponsibly anti-Russian. Her writing shows it.

She lied claiming Moscow supports "secessionists in bordering states." Most recently "in the South Caucasus."

Putin supports self-determination rights. So does international law. Shaffer didn't explain. Russia bashing was featured.

Times editors published her rubbish. It's polar opposite reality. She wrongfully claims "Russia separated South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia…in 2008."

She lied saying it "seized Crimea from Ukraine this year." It bears repeating what earlier articles explained. 

Crimeans voted near unanimously to join Russia. They did so in a referendum independent international monitors called open, free and fair.

Shaffer didn't explain. She shamelessly claimed Russia fuels regional "antagonisms." It stokes conflicts, she said.

It goes all-out to resolve ongoing ones responsibly. Diplomatically. Equitably. Claims otherwise are false.

She ludicrously said "open warfare give(s) Russia an excuse to send in more troops, under the guise of peacekeeping."

Western countries need "a strategy to prevent Moscow from grabbing another border region," she claimed. To "rebuild its lost empire."

Nothing whatever suggests Russia is revanchist. Plenty indicts America and Israel. Don't expect Shaffer to explain. 

Or Times editors publishing her rubbish. Or their own. On October 3, they headlined "Keeping the Pressure on Mr. Putin: To Give Ukraine a Chance, Sanctions on Russia Must Continue."

They're illegitimate. Lawless. Counterproductive. Ineffective. Proving consistent shameless Western policy. Showing it's opposite what everyone deserves.

It bears repeating what other articles explained. Washington and rogue Western partners never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to act responsibly.

Policies pursued are reckless. Ruthless. Irresponsible. Polar opposite what's fair, equitable, just and lawful.

US-led Western conflicts rage. Truth is turned on its head. Russia is wrongfully blamed for their crimes.

"…Mr Putin has little incentive to make any concessions to Ukraine," Times editors claimed. He's gone way out of his way to do so. Repeatedly. Responsibly.

On numerous vital issues. Especially on going all-out to resolve Kiev's war without mercy on its own citizens diplomatically. 

On delivering vital humanitarian aid to Donetsk residents despite Kiev putschist efforts to block it.

On championing peace and stability overall. On doing more for what's right to resolve ongoing Kiev-initiated conflict than any other nation. Despite taking flack for doing so. 

According to Times editors, "(f)reezing the conflict, with pro-Russian insurgents in effective control of Ukraine's industrial southeast and negotiations plodding along indefinitely, suits (Putin) just fine."

Truth is polar opposite this rubbish. Southeastern Ukrainian self-defense forces are freedom fighters. 

They deserve universal support. They want what everyone deserves. They put their bodies on the line pursuing it. Don't expect Times editors to explain.

"One of Mr. Putin's advantages in the conflict is that he has never revealed his hand," they said.

He "simply denied that Russia is involved while actively backing Russia's proxies with arms and soldiers." 

"When Ukrainian forces actually began to get the upper hand over the insurgents, Russia sent in more troops and arms, finally forcing the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, to settle for a cease-fire that was essentially a tactical victory for Mr. Putin."

Times analysis doesn't rise to the level of bad fiction. Legitimate editors wouldn't touch this rubbish. Truth is polar opposite Times Big Lies.

Kiev troops had no incentive to wage war against their own people.
Previous articles explained they're notoriously underpaid, poorly fed and clothed, as well as deplorably retreated.

Morale is low. Many are forced to serve involuntarily. Many others oppose fighting Ukrainian citizens.

Some defect. Most prefer being home. Some seek refuge in Russia. Many young men cross over to avoid military service altogether.

Even separately The Times admited they're "exhausted, filthy, dismayed" and dispirited. Many fought "unwilling(ly)." 

Others backed off "in full retreat." Leaving their weapons behind. Giving self-defense forces access to tanks and other heavy ones.

They showed remarkable courage, resilience and strength. They still do. They believe freedom is worth fighting for. 

They proved it every day. Despite Western propaganda bashing them. Despite media scoundrels regurgitating it. 

Despite obstacles most observers thought too tough to overcome. They proved otherwise. They prevailed. 

They intend holding on to what they achieved. It bears repeating. They deserve universal support and then some

Not from Times editors for sure. "Mr. Putin's plan," they say, "now seems to be to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the European Union, achieve de facto recognition of the annexation of Crimea and keep Ukraine weak."

Times editors forget GHW Bush promising former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev not to encroach "one inch to the east."

He should have known US pledges aren't worth the paper they're written. Or ones verbally expressed. 

Imperialism works this way. Hegemons are uncompromising. America doesn't negotiate. It's all take and no give.

Putin wants Ukraine remaining independent. It's located in Europe's heartland. 

He wants it able to trade freely with Eastern and Western countries. Not restricted to one group or the other largely. 

Not constrained under rules no country should accept. Not taking orders from Washington.

Not run by fascist putschists. Not threatening Russia's legitimate interests. It's security mainly.

Fighting in Southeastern Ukraine largely ebbed. Conflict nonetheless continues. Washington demands it.

It wants convenient stooges governing all Ukraine. It wants democratic rights eliminated altogether.

It wants Ukrainian resources strip-mined. It wants Western corporations given primary access.

It wants Ukrainian workers turned into serfs. It wants Kiev hamstrung under IMF debt bondage. 

With structural adjustment harshness preventing economic growth and development. Don't expect Times editors to explain.

Grudgingly they admit Ukraine's "economy continues to disintegrate." They fail to explain why. It's not by accident. It's by corrupt/illegitimate leadership and design.

They ludicrously claim oligarch president Petro Poroshenko "demonstrate(s) courage and realism in dealing with Russia while insisting that his goal remains to join the European Union."

He's a caricature of real leadership. He's illegitimate. He's against his own people. He's exploiting them for power and profit.

Times editors want Washington and EU nations supporting his worst policies. Endorsing wrong over right is longstanding Times policy.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

Visit his blog site at 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.