NYT Revamps Its False Ukraine Narrative

Exclusive: Official Washington’s Ukraine narrative has been that it was all Vladimir Putin’s fault, that the Russian president staged the crisis to restore the Russian empire, a storyline that never made sense and is now being rearranged to explain why Putin is seeking peace, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

It’s always interesting when the New York Times promotes a false narrative – as it has on Ukraine by blaming the crisis all on “Russian aggression” – and then has to shift its storyline when events move in a different direction, like President Vladimir Putin’s recent peacemaking initiatives.

On Thursday, the Times explained Putin’s call for an extended ceasefire as a case of him caving in to U.S. pressure. Correspondents Andrew Roth and David S. Herszenhorn wrote:

Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Faced with the threat of additional economic sanctions from Washington, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia discussed an extension of the cease-fire, which is to expire on Friday, in a telephone call with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President François Hollande of France and Ukraine’s new president, Petro O. Poroshenko.”

The article then continued the tough-guy, ultimatum-threatening chest-pounding that has become de rigueur for the State Department and the mainstream U.S. news media. The Times article noted:

“The Obama administration has drawn up plans to escalate sanctions against Russia if it does not back the current peace plan by halting the flow of weapons and fighters across the Russian border. The sanctions could target some of Russia’s largest banks, or energy and defense firms.”

The Times also reported, without skepticism, the unverified allegations that the Russian government is supplying heavy weapons to the eastern Ukrainian separatists who rebelled after violent protests by western Ukrainians ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22.

The U.S. government has repeatedly made allegations about “Russian aggression” in eastern Ukraine but has failed to present any verifiable proof to support the claims. One State Department attempt, which involved getting the Times to run a lead article citing photos purportedly proving that Russian military personnel were operating in Ukraine, collapsed under scrutiny and was later retracted by the Times.

Nevertheless, the Times still conveys the State Department’s claims without noting the absence of evidence, itself evidence of the Times’ unstinting bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. For instance, the Times reported:

“On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry began a news conference at NATO in Brussels by calling for Mr. Putin ‘to stop the flow of weapons and fighters across the border.’ Mr. Kerry said that the missile launcher that brought down the [Ukrainian military] helicopter on Tuesday was Russian-made and urged Mr. Putin to call for separatist forces to lay down their arms. A senior administration official said Friday that several tanks under rebel possession had come from Russia.”

Normally, when one party in a dispute makes an allegation and fails to provide meaningful evidence to support it, news organizations add something like: “However, the claim could not be independently verified” or the Times might have noted that “similar claims by the State Department in the past have proven to be false.”

But the Times simply can’t seem to deviate from its four-month display of an extraordinary lack of balance, which brings us back to the Times’ attempt to explain Putin’s peacemaking as a development that could only be explained as him caving in to U.S. pressure. [For more on the Times’ bias, see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT’s One-Sided Ukraine Narrative.” For more on Herszenhorn’s bias, see “Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass.”]

Putin’s Thinking

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for Putin’s recent behavior: that he never sought the Ukraine crisis and surely did not plan it; it resulted, in part, from U.S. and European provocations designed to put Putin in a corner in his own corner of the world; Putin reacted to this Western maneuver but was always willing to compromise as long as the end result was not a strategic threat to Russia.

I’m told that Putin, like many historic Russian leaders, has wanted to see Russia accepted as a member of the First World and took personal pride in helping President Barack Obama defuse crises in Syria and Iran last year. Arguably, it was Putin’s assistance on those crises that made him a target of Washington’s still influential neocons who had hoped instead for U.S. bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran.

By late September 2013 – on the heels of Obama rejecting plans to bomb Syria – leading neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, identified Ukraine as a key piece on the chessboard to checkmate Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

The Ukraine crisis really emerged from the European Union’s offer of an association agreement that President Yanukovych was initially inclined to accept. But it was accompanied by harsh austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund, which would have made the hard life for the average Ukrainian even harder.

Because of those IMF demands and a more generous $15 billion loan offer from Russia, Yanukovych backed away from the EU association, angering many western Ukrainians and creating an opening for U.S. neocons, such as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, to urge on protests to unseat Yanukovych.

In February, as the Ukraine crisis worsened, Putin was preoccupied with the Winter Olympics in Sochi, but he went along with a compromise plan on Feb. 21 in which Yanukovych agreed to reduced powers and early elections (so he could be voted out of office) as well as to pull back the police. That opened the way for violent attacks by neo-Nazi militias who overran government buildings on Feb. 22 and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.

With the U.S. State Department endorsing the coup as “legitimate,” a right-wing government quickly took shape under the leadership of Nuland’s hand-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Four ministries were given to the neo-Nazis in appreciation of their key role in the coup, including the appointment of Andriy Parubiy as chief of national security.

The new regime immediately displayed hostility toward the ethnic Russians in the east and south, including sending wealthy “oligarchs” to serve as the new regional governors and dispatching neo-Nazi militias – reconstituted as the National Guard – to crackdown on dissent.

The regional government of Crimea, a longtime part of Russia and home of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, organized a referendum to secede from Ukraine and to rejoin Russia, a move supported by Putin and aided by the thousands of Russian troops already in Crimea under a basing agreement with Ukraine.

Crimea’s secession was treated by the mainstream U.S. media as a Russian “invasion” and an act of “aggression,” though the reunification with Russia clearly had overwhelming support from the people of Crimea as expressed in the referendum and in opinion polls.

Still, across Official Washington, the narrative took hold that Putin had ginned up the Ukraine crisis so he could seize territory and begin to reconstitute the old Soviet Union. Right-wing and neocon pundits raised the specter of Putin attacking the Baltic states. The U.S. news media lost all perspective on the actual events in Ukraine.

The reality was that Putin was reacting to a Western provocation on his border, a coup d’etat to pry Ukraine away from its traditional relationship with its neighbor Russia and into the embrace of the European Union and NATO. Putin himself noted the threat to Russian national security if NATO’s nuclear-missile-bearing ships were berthed in Sevastopol.

From the beginning, Putin hoped to resolve this crisis through discussions with his erstwhile collaborator, Barack Obama, but – with the U.S. media in a frenzy demonizing Putin – Obama would not even come to the phone at first, I’m told. Afraid of being called “weak,” Obama followed the lead of the State Department’s hawks who were lusting for Cold War II.

Gradually, with Europe’s fragile economic recovery at risk if Russia’s natural gas supplies were disrupted, cooler heads began to prevail. Obama eventually took Putin’s phone calls and the two met face-to-face during the ceremonies around the 70th anniversary of D-Day in France. Putin also viewed chocolate manufacturer Petro Poroshenko as a reasonable choice to fill the slot of Ukraine’s new president.

Poroshenko and Putin found common ground in their desire to deescalate the crisis although neither leader has been able to fully control the hardliners, not Poroshenko in trying to rein in the Right Sektor which has taken a lead role in killing ethnic Russians in Odessa and other cities, nor Putin in convincing the separatists that they have a future in the post-coup Ukraine.

But Putin continues to signal support for Poroshenko’s stated intent to respect the rights of eastern Ukrainians by offering more self-rule and respecting their use of Russian as an official language. In a sign of good faith, Putin has even sought to rescind the permission from the Russian legislature to intervene militarily to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

However, these developments created a dilemma for the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media. If the Ukraine crisis had been just an excuse for Putin to seize territory and revive the “Russian empire,” why would he be so eager to work out a peaceful settlement? The opposite should be true. If the MSM had it right, Putin would be escalating the crisis.

So, we now have this new version: Yes, Putin precipitated the Ukraine crisis so he could conquer Eastern Europe. But he backed down because of tough talk from Official Washington (including on the MSM’s op-ed pages). In other words, the MSM had it right but tough-guy-ism and the threat of sanctions scared Putin into retreat.

That this analysis makes little sense – since it was the European Union that was most unnerved by the prospects of U.S.-driven sanctions disrupting Russia’s natural gas supplies and plunging the Continent into a recessionary relapse – was of little regard to the U.S. press corps. The new false narrative was simply a necessary way to cover for the old false narrative.

It could never be acknowledged that the New York Times and the other esteemed U.S. journals had gotten another major international story wrong, that another “group think” had led the MSM down another rabbit hole of mistakes and misunderstanding. Instead, all that was needed was some creative tinkering with the storyline.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Share this Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • email

32 comments on “NYT Revamps Its False Ukraine Narrative

  1. John M. Morgan on said:

    Parry has done suer reporting on this issue, IMO. Much appreciated.

    • @ John Morgan I agree! I’ve been carrying all Mr. Parry’s articles on the subject on my websites.

      My apologies for repeating myself, but history repeats itself and I will soon tire and retire repeating myself.

      Writer and journalist Finian Cunningham raises three crucial points in the Cross talking –Ukraine Crucibles discussion here:
      http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/06/63543-crosstalk-ukrainian-crucible/

      First and most important the terrible humanitarian situation which nobody seems to talk about, or care about in American mainstream media, (“scoundrels” as author and journalist Stephen Lendman accurately describes them.)

      Second, America is not being held accountable for their part (Victoria Nuland, Amb. Pyatt, John McCain, John Brennan) in escalating the crisis and destabilizing Ukraine but instead the onus is put on Vladimir Putin to do something.
      America is allowed to get away.

      Third and not the least important, America’s main goal has been to arrest EU trade with Russia.

      If a prophetic gift is the gift of truth telling, Dylan’s got it. So refreshing!

      Dylan Moran :

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N0rUtSLZTlc#t=0
      A common reaction to ignorance and the lack of intelligent investigation and lack of any real attempt to understand… all of which can be laid at the base of lack of sensitivity for others and the failure of humanity to demand action to correct these inequities and injustices.

      I wonder – will we ever become civilized or just accept the veneer? The worrying part is that all this hypocrisy is out in the open the past 2 decades if not more and the American public just doesn’t seem to care.

  2. F. G. Sanford on said:

    Amazing, isn’t it? We’re watching the world dissolve into liquid lunacy as every faction and and its delusional fanatics spins a version of truth that would bewilder even Lewis Carroll. The administration desperately clings to the “Russian Aggression” scenario claiming that its firm stance and the consensus of the “International Community” have brought Putin to his knees. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce publicly ridicules the futility of sanctions and admonishes the devastating effects they will have on the faltering U.S. economy.

    The other lunatic version of reality recently published by The Times is the Helene Cooper article outlining NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden’s support for a plan to carefully vet and supply billions in aid to Syrian rebels in order to “help the Syrian people defend themselves against regime attacks”. Mind you, the Syrian people just voted overwhelmingly to support the Assad “regime” because that’s what actually protects them from the barbarians we propose to support.

    Kerry touts the cooperation with the Egyptian “coup that isn’t a coup”, vowing to assure that the decidedly undemocratic dictatorship that has been killing its own people will soon receive ten Apache helicopters so that the “regime” can defend itself against…the Egyptian people?

    Franklin Lamb, who usually represents a relatively humanistic point of view, recently wrote that “this observer” (He always calls himself that) has noted that ISIS is restoring order by whipping and stoning people and has established itself in the hearts and minds of Iraqis as a liberating force that will soon establish the caliphate and liberate Palestine.

    While think-tanks like WINEP drool in their masturbatory delusional frenzy to retain relevance in an administration that clearly no longer has a grip on reality, Putin seems cognizant that Poroshenko is trapped between Nazis on one side, fellow corrupt oligarchs on the other, and retains power only because he adheres to a U.S. strategy which will eventually damage the EU economy. The bloodbath that could resolve this dilemma would resemble “The Night of the Long Knives”, but either way, the “international community” of which the administration boasts really only cares about getting Russian gas back on line before cold weather sets in. Stay tuned for more NYT Looney Tunes, cuz, “That ain’t all, folks!”

    • Daniel Pfeiffer on said:

      Excellent comments, thank you. One might be forgiven for getting the impression that the US is so desperate to hide the bloody consequences of its decades of violent Empire building that it is simply killing anyone who might expose the truth, while simultaneously lying to the American people for as long as they have to until no one dares question them again.

    • Ronald Beal on said:

      Very good article (facts). Sorry it was not more extensive. I am married to a Russian lady who was living in Odessa when we met. We currently have children and g-children there. The demonizing of any country or group this government wishes to use, attack, kill or experiment with has reached new peaks. The best approach for many years should have been to automatically believe the opposite. What the article did not address is the reality of the physical role the Obama White House (OWH) has had and is having in Ukraine. The first week in May, Greystone mercenaries, fka Blackwater, were on the ground in Kiev. American snipers killed demonstrators on both sides which instigated violence and more demonizing of the ‘Russians’. Ukraine did not have a really viable military. (If one soldier got sick, 50% of the military was disabled!) Almost immediately, Ukraine had a modern army consisting of new US tanks, APCs, rockets with launchers, 7.62 NATO ammo, hollow-point and new exploding bullets, Hummers and uniforms. A little later they had gas and chemical agents to use against the ‘terrorist’. Finally, helicopters were added. It is reported at the first meeting with the US representative, Joe Biden, the front man for the OWH, questioned ‘why the army was still in Kiev?’ “They need to be out across the country killing people!” as reported by foreign journalist covering the new government. It was discovered very quickly, Ukraine “recruited’ forces would not kill their own countrymen. Immediately, the Ukraine prisons were emptied and enlisted into the UKE army. Then the killing started. Public buildings, with civilians driven inside for their safety, were torched, with the Police and firefighters denied access. Those that survived the fire had accelerants poured or sprayed on their faces, hands and feet and set fire. As the torture took place, the civilians were shot in the face or head, or killed with iron rods. Government workers found in the buildings were killed, some women raped and dismembered, while children were dismembered, their bodies placed in garbage bags then hidden to cover the atrocities. The “terrorist” in UKE are all ‘civilians’, both Ukrainian and Russian who demonstrated against the Nazi government the OWH has installed in Kiev. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine! If so, are they winning or loosing? Where is the evidence of Russian causalities, destroyed equipment, dead soldiers? There is no evidence of Russia invading or providing support for anyone in Ukraine! The evidence is US soldiers on the ground (videos on EU news) US weapons, 150 civilian clothed advisors in Kiev, gas (sourced back to the US), US choppers, US Hummers etc etc.
      All the terrorist in Ukraine are civilians, being slaughtered by US equipped, paid and advised (encouraged) by the Obama White House, fronted by Joe Bidden and John McCain!! Men, women and children are being killed at random on the streets across UKE; Apartments are being invaded during the night, killing all occupants and the stealing of belongings; Civilians are being mutilated with axes, body parts strewn in the streets; Civilians are fleeing in the thousands per day into all adjacent countries, the primary recipient being Russia. Videos from foreign journalist show 1000′s being processed into Russia. It is estimated that over 50,000 have fled UKE during the so-called ‘cease fire’, which ends today. (The public of UKE were notified if they did not leave the eastern territory by the end of the cease fire, they would be killed. The eastern designated area is to be “cleansed” and re-populated with loyalist of the Nazi president. ) The US WH talking-head, when questioned concerning the thousands fleeing UKE, stated ‘…they are going on holiday…’
      NOW, US B-52′s are in Germany for training. (?) The B-52 Stealth is the only plane capable of transporting nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike anywhere in the world. I have written 15 Senators and numerous talking heads with the truth on UKE. No one has responded. The world is allowing the OWH to badger Russia to a position where Putin will have to respond to save his people. With a single gesture on Putin’s part, Obama will initiate a first strike nuclear attack. This is not a personal opinion, the facts are noted and published by others. Civilians, both Ukrainian and Russians continue to be slaughtered by the Nazi-supported government installed by the OWH. The Ukrainians and Russians are a strong people, enduring much for many years. They are friendly, cordial and loving. They love the ‘family’, and have beautiful children. Stats indicate 72% of the population live in poverty – they will give you the last dollar they have if you are in need. I have traveled Ukraine and Russia- they are a beautiful people.
      Spread the Truth – someone has to stand- someone MUST stand and stop the lunacy of the African Tyrant currently residing in the DC.

      • Jeff Davis on said:

        “African tyrant”!!!!!!!!!!

        A total whackadoodle.

        How does someone — you, or for that matter anyone — go so completely utterly insane?

  3. Benedikte on said:

    Ref Putin and Russia:
    Putin says in his book “first Person” ‘Judo is not just a sport, it is a philosophy.’
    Judo has its roots in Tao’ism…
    Putin sure follows that philosophy and he is our hope for this f..ked up planet.
    When joined at the hip now with China – well we are on our way to a new civilization built on sanity and international law, silk roads and all built by the people for the people. Leaving behind USA… and EU … like way behind on a lower level of existence …. that is if they don’t change their unworkable predatory ways.
    That is all.

  4. It’s been awful to watch, hasn’t it? Even popular and frequently outspoken talk show hosts and comedians have acted like gatekeepers about Ukraine. Because Russia is just, you know, bad. And the fact that, in reality, Putin is being shoved into the role of a peacemaking hero just makes my head hurt. Thank god for writers like you.

  5. Brussels, 27 june 2014
    In west europa we are well aware of the weak poor skills of Obama in matters of
    foreign policy going generally thanks te US Heads of State in desaster, attacks, prones, war, death. Obama viciously attacked President V. Putin in order to provoke Russia, destabilising West Europa, with the stupid help of E.U. old bunch.
    Now Obama has to play new games. What else ? Mr Putin, great Head of State, is to be trusted in foreign policy strategy, the opposite of dumb Obama decisions enabled to deal the Irak crisis.

  6. Joe Tedesky on said:

    Call me crazy, but what if Germany in the end pivots over to Russia? Another question I have is, who all amongst our friends may also change signs?

    • Joe Tedesky on said:

      change sides?

    • acomfort on said:

      Good point Joe.
      Changing sides could be in the best interest of Germany.
      Supporting the US threatens Germany’s business with Russia, Germany’s energy (gas) supply from Russia and it threatens the peace in the area.

      • Joe Tedesky on said:

        tks for commenting. Add to our inquiry the fragile life of the American dollar as the reserve currency…where may this all lead to?

    • There is a revolt under way in France.

      • Hey You on said:

        The English want to run the world and are using Obama administration to do so.

  7. Interesting read though about as close to a true narrative as Putin’s, the NYT or the State Dept. — People seem bent on stretching the truth to fit opinions.

    The referendum was certainly not trustworthy, a substantial portion of Crimea’s population did not want to join Russia as earlier polls suggest, Putin did reenforce troops (invade) in Crimea (he admitted that finally), he was probably also influenced by the threat of sanctions as the timing suggests, etc…

    So in my view there is a little truth in each of the versions mentioned. But I agree it is frustrating to read unopposed viewpoints throughout the western mainstream media. At least some alternative views (like Consortium News) are not crushed (I do like reading these) — they may fair worse in Russia ( RIA Novosti, Lenta.ru, etc).

    • H.S. on said:

      The Russian troops did nothing to influence the results of the Crimean referendum. All they did was eject some neo-Nazi sympathizers who would have tried to disrupt it. There were international observers who saw no irregularities. Over 90% of the tallied votes were in favor of joining Russia. This was a rational choice between the relative safety and prosperity of Russia on the one hand, and the rising anarchy and collapsing economy of Ukraine on the other.

      • Yaroslav on said:

        Useless. Most of americans WANT to be duped and brainwashed. Somebody must be bad (the world is not a paradise). Russia is the best choice.

  8. Bill Jones on said:

    I think it’s terribly naive to assume that the Times stories were in error rather than just outright knowingly cynical propaganda.

  9. biznez67@gmail.com on said:

    Truly Walter Durante worthy. How much does the Kremlin pay you to publish Putin’s lies? I’m grateful that we live in a free society where hacks like you can espouse all of the crazy they want and reasonable folks ignore you.

    By the way, ask Alexander Navalniy or Anna Politskovskaya how criticizing the Russian government has worked out for them at home.

    • James on said:

      Alexei Navalny is a Yale World Fellow and co-founder of US National Endowment for Democracy Da! or “Democratic Alternative/Yes in Russian” which just happens to be funded by the US State Department. All the leaders of demonstrations against Putin were filmed coming out of the US Embassy after a meeting, so it doesn’t take a genius to understand why criticism of Russia was taking place.

      If you are referring to America when you say “free society”, there aren’t many on this planet who would agree with you on that.

    • F. G. Sanford on said:

      If you want to play the “suppressed journalism” card, maybe we should start with Dorothy Kilgallen, Danny Casolaro and Michael Hastings. I’m just curious – which “alphabet soup” agency pays you to troll this site?

    • Southerncross on said:

      Alex Navalny is a shitty little grifter and a Nazi sympathiser. He fell foul of the law because he used his position as adviser to the Kirov regional governor to help his friend Ofitserov force the region’s largest timber company (Kirovles) into a corrupt arrangement with Ofitserov’s company (VLK). Kirovles was forced to sell timber to VLK at less than its true value, while VLK in turn sold the timber to Kirovles’ usual customers for the usual market price. Opponents of the Russian government who aren’t career criminals have no trouble staying out of jail.

      As for Politkovskaya – did you miss the part where her murderers were convicted and jailed this year? She was murdered because Chechen organised didn’t like her poking around in their business – nothing to do with Putin.

  10. Kiza on said:

    I am not surprised by the number of US “intelligent” news readers who are brainwashed by the USG propaganda. But my amazement never diminishes why they bother coming to sites with opposing views, such as this, to repeat the rubbish they collect from the corpo-government media. Yet, it is the best propaganda the US Taxpayer can buy, matched by the best NSA surveillance the US Taxpayer can buy. The USG could be more successful in brainwashing only if opened a hole in each citizen’s head to pour in the “news”.

  11. A very fine article, though I wish I could be convinced by its main premise. Alas, I cannot. I think that Mr Putin is in fact caving in to US pressure. I wish it were not so, since I admire he man, but I think he has indeed caved, at least partially.

    True, he is a great chess player and he may have seen a few moves ahead, and perhaps we should wait and see if he can ultimately outsmart the Left/Right warmonger brigade. But at this point, it does look like capitulation, at least to me.

    • Yaroslav on said:

      Are you kidding? Putin called for peace all the way. There was no any change of his course, any capitulation. Could you point a smallest sign of the reverse in his speeches for last months? It’s just a foul play of NYT and SD.
      Crazy world…

  12. Note also how they revamped the Cold War. For forty years it was a war against communism. Now it appears that it was a war against the Russian empire. But if it has been the Russian empire all along then it is not all the job of one person (Putin.)

  13. Cerberus79 on said:

    For God’s sake, who relies on the NY Times for unbiased news coverage any more? The Gray Lady has turned whore and is no longer good for anything…unless you have an outhouse.

  14. Meet the neo-Bolsheviks, same as the old Bolsheviks. (wink wink)
    Made in NYC..

  15. Nicholas on said:

    Rather than demonize the New York Times, the vast majority of the US media is pathetic (though I do think this article is excellent). Americans never want to know the reality of foreign affairs because they just don’t care as individuals and more importantly, a US-version of events allows for more weapons manufacturing and idiotic manipulation of affairs in another state that ultimately are an abject failure. Clearly, the very last thing on earth Putin would ever want, are free and open elections to decide the fate of region. With such votes, the entirety of Russia would be decimated into at least 30 if not 300 separate states. Only strongmen have ever kept the entire Russian empire together. Furthermore, if Putin didn’t “accept” Crimea back into the fold, I seriously doubt he would have retained power. His own people, literally and figuratively, would have had him removed, forcibly or otherwise, a pragmatic reality that the press in general in the US would not even consider. Whether it is news coverage in Ukraine or Haiti or elsewhere, never expect to read the reality. The BBC, CBC and yes, even Pravda, have had far more accurate coverage of events in the US and elsewhere than we have.

  16. Bud Wood on said:

    Seem that we are observing the final threshing around of the USA empire (USE). It is a matter to time until the USA devolves into separate political entities. We may already be seeing that trend on the Texas and California borders with Mexico.

  17. Alexander Scherbak on said:

    Parry’s crocodile tears conveniently ignore the criminal false narrative of the New York Times and its Moscow Bureau Chief, Walter Duranty, in aiding and abetting Moscow to murder 10 million Eastern Ukrainians.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIZiRCvqVM