Special Report: The U.S. government defined events in Ukraine as a “pro-democracy” revolution battling “Russian aggression” — at least as far as the world’s mainstream media was concerned. But what if the script were flipped, asks Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria
As the United States plans to move thousands of NATO troops to Russia’s borders and continues to bolster a fiercely anti-Russian regime in neighboring Ukraine, the official line in Washington and its subservient corporate media is that beneficent America is simply seeking to curtail Moscow’s “aggression.” But the U.S. government and media might look at things quite differently if the shoe were on the other foot.
What, for instance, would the U.S. reaction be if Russia instead had supported the violent overthrow of, say, Canada’s government and assisted the new Ottawa regime’s “anti-terrorist operations” against a few rebellious “pro-American” provinces, including one that voted 96 percent in a referendum to reject the new Russian-backed authorities and attach itself to the U.S.?
If the U.S. government tried to help these embattled “pro-American” Canadians – and protect the breakaway province against the Russian-installed regime – would Washington see itself as the “aggressor” or as simply helping people resist anti-democratic repression? Would it view Russian troop movements to the U.S. border as a way to stop an American “invasion” or rather an act of “aggression” and provocation by Russia against the United States?
The Ukraine Reality
Before playing out this hypothetical scenario, let’s look at the actual scene in Ukraine today as opposed to the gross distortion of reality fed the American people by the U.S. mainstream media the past two years. The reality is not the State Department’s fable of a pro-democracy “revolution” cleaning up corruption and putting Ukrainian people first.
In the real world instead, extreme right-wing nationalists took control of a popular protest by mostly western Ukrainians to spearhead a violent coup that succeeded on Feb. 22, 2014, in overthrowing President Viktor Yanukovych, a man whom I interviewed in 2013 after he had been democratically chosen in an election certified by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Proof of the U.S. role in the coup came in a leaked telephone conversation several weeks earlier between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. In the conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed how the U.S. could “midwife” the unconstitutional change of government and they rated which Ukrainian politicians should be put in charge, with Nuland declaring “Yats is the guy,” a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
As for the European Union’s less aggressive approach to the Ukraine situation, Nuland declared: “Fuck the E.U.”
Nevertheless, after the coup, Western governments denied there ever was a coup, peddling the line that Yanukovych simply “ran away,” as though he woke up one morning and decided he didn’t want to be president anymore.
In fact, on Feb. 21, to contain the mounting violence, Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal to reduce his powers and to hold early elections. But the next day, as right-wing street-fighters overran government buildings, Yanukovych fled for his life – and the West moved quickly to consolidate a new government under anti-Russian politicians, including Nuland’s choice—Yats as prime minister. (Yatsenyuk remained prime minister until last month when he resigned amid complaints that his stewardship had been disastrous for the Ukrainian people.)
A Resistance Emerges
Since the vast majority of Yanukovych’s support came from the ethnically Russian eastern half of the country, some Yanukovych backers rose up to challenge the legitimacy of the coup regime and to defend Ukraine’s democratic process.
Instead the West portrayed this resistance as a Russian-instigated rebellion against the newly minted and U.S.-certified “legitimate” government that then launched a violent repression of eastern Ukrainians who were deemed “terrorists.”
When Russia supported the resisters with weapons, money and some volunteers, the West accused Russia of an “invasion” and “aggression” in the east. But there has never been satellite imagery or other proof of this alleged full-scale Russian “invasion.”
In the midst of the Kiev “anti-terrorist” offensive in the east, on July 17, 2014, a Malaysian commercial airliner, Flight MH-17, was shot out of the sky, killing all 298 people on board. The United States, again offering no proof, immediately blamed Russia.
Over the past year, the fighting has been largely contained after Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders negotiated the Minsk Accords, though they are far from being implemented and widespread violence could break out again at any time.
Throughout the entire crisis the United States has insisted its motives are pure, including its new plans for deploying some 4,000 NATO troops, including about half American, on Russia’s Eastern European borders north of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama told the U.N. General Assembly last year that the U.S. had no economic interests in Ukraine. But former State Department official Natalie Jaresko served as Ukraine’s finance minister until recently and Vice President Joe Biden’s son sits on the board of a major Ukrainian company. U.S. investment also has increased since the coup.
Yanukovych’s overthrow occurred after he chose a Russian economic plan rather than sign an association agreement with the European Union, which Ukrainian economic analysts warned would cost the country $160 billion in lost trade with Russia.
The E.U. plan would also have opened Ukraine to Western neoliberal economic strategies designed to exploit the country for the benefit of Western capital and local oligarchs (one of whom, Petro Poroshenko, emerged as the new president).
Turning the Tables
To help American readers better understand what has transpired in Ukraine, it may be useful to see what it would be like if the tables were turned. What would the story be like if Russia played the role of the U.S. and Canada the role of Ukraine? Most Americans would not be pleased.
In this reverse scenario, the world’s mainstream media would follow Moscow’s line and present the story as a U.S. “invasion” of Canada. The media would explain the movement of Russian troops to the U.S. border as nothing more than a peaceful step to deter U.S. “aggression.”
But Americans might see matters differently, siding with the breakaway Maritime provinces resisting the Moscow-engineered violent coup d’etat in Ottawa. In this scenario, Prince Edwards Islanders would have voted by over 90 percent to secede from the pro-Russian regime in Ottawa and join the United States, as Crimea did in the case of Ukraine. People in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick – stressing their close historic ties to America – also would make clear their desire not to be violently absorbed by the Ottawa coup regime.
In this alternative scenario, Moscow would condemn Prince Edwards Island’s referendum as a “sham” and vow never to accept its “illegal” secession. The popular resistance in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be denounced as “terrorism” justifying a brutal military crackdown by Russian-backed Canadian federal troops dispatched to crush the dissent. In this “anti-terrorist operation” against the breakaway region, residential areas would be shelled killing thousands of civilians and devastating towns and cities.
In this endeavor, the Canadian army would be joined by Russian-supported neo-fascist battalions that had played a crucial role in the overthrow of the Canadian government. In the Maritime city of Halifax, these extremists would burn alive at least 40 pro-U.S. civilians who took refugee in a trade union building. The new government in Ottawa would make no effort to protect the victims, nor conduct a serious investigation to punish the perpetrators.
Ignoring a Leak
Meanwhile, proof that Russia was behind the overthrow of the elected Canadian prime minister would be revealed in a leaked conversation between Moscow’s foreign ministry chief of the North America department and the Russian ambassador to Canada.
According to a transcript of the leaked conversation, the Moscow-based official would discuss who the new Canadian leaders should be several weeks before the coup took place. Russia would launch the coup when Canada decided to take a loan package from the U.S.-based International Monetary Fund that had fewer strings attached than a loan from Russia.
Russia’s ally in Beijing would be reluctant to back the coup. But this would seem to be of little concern to Moscow’s man who is heard on the tape saying, “Fuck China.” Although this conversation would be posted on YouTube, its contents and import would be largely ignored by the global mainstream media, which would insist there was no coup in Ottawa.
Yet, weeks before the coup, the Russian foreign ministry official would be filmed visiting protesters camped out in Parliament Square in Ottawa demanding the ouster of the prime minister. The Russian official would give out cakes to the demonstrators.
The foreign ministers of Russian-allied Belarus and Cuba would also march with the protesters through the streets of Ottawa against the government. The world’s mainstream media would portray these demands for an unconstitutional change of government as an act of “democracy” and a desire to end “corruption.”
In a speech, the Russian foreign ministry official would remind Canadian businessmen that Russia had spent $5 billion over the past decade to “bring democracy” to Canada, much of that money spent training “civil society” activists and funding anti-government “journalists.” The use of these non-governmental organizations to overthrow foreign governments that stand in the way of Russia’s economic and geo-strategic interests would have been well documented but largely ignored by the global mainstream media.
But recognizing the danger from these “color revolution” strategies, the United States would move to ban Russian NGOs from operating in the U.S., a tactic that would be denounced by Russia as America’s rejection of “democracy.”
The Coup Succeeds
The Canadian coup would take place as protesters violently clashed with police, breaking through barricades and killing a number of police officers. Snipers would fire on the police and the crowd from a nearby Parliament Square building under the control of hardline pro-Russian extremists. But the Russian government and the mainstream media would blame the killings on the embattled Canadian prime minister.
To stem the violence, the prime minister would offer to call early elections but instead would be driven from office violently by the pro-Russian street gangs. Russia and the global mainstream news media would praise the overthrow as a great step for democracy and would hail the pro-Russian street fighters who had died in the coup as the “Heavenly Hundred.”
Following the coup, Russian lawmakers would compare President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler for allegedly sending U.S. troops into the breakaway provinces to protect the populations from violent repression, and for accepting the pleas of the people of Prince Edward Island to secede from this new Canada.
Obama would be widely accused of ordering an “American invasion” and committing an act of “American aggression” in violation of international law. But the Maritimes would note that they had long ties to the U.S. dating back to the American Revolution and didn’t want to live under a new regime imposed by a faraway foreign power.
Russia would claim intelligence proving that U.S. tanks crossed the Maine border into New Brunswick, but would fail to make the evidence public. Russia would also refuse to reveal satellite imagery supporting the charge. But the claims would still be widely accepted by the world’s mainstream news media.
For its part, Washington would deny it invaded but say some American volunteers had entered the Canadian province to join the fight, a claim met with widespread media derision. Russia’s puppet prime minister in Ottawa would offer as proof of an American invasion just six passports of U.S. soldiers found in New Brunswick.
Taking Aim at Washington
When – during one of the new regime’s “anti-terrorist” offensives – a passenger jet would be shot down over Nova Scotia killing all onboard, Russia would accuse President Obama of being behind the outrage, charging that the U.S. had provided the powerful anti-aircraft missile needed to reach a plane flying at 33,000 feet.
But Moscow would refuse to release any intelligence to support its claim, which would nevertheless be accepted by world’s mainstream media.
The plane’s shoot-down would enable Russia to rally China and other international allies into imposing a harsh economic boycott of America to punish it for its “aggression.”
To bring “good government” to Canada and to deal with its collapsing economy, a former Russian foreign ministry official would be installed as Canada’s finance minister, receiving Canadian citizenship on her first day on the job.
Of course, Russia would deny that it had economic interests in Canada, simply wanting to help the country free itself from oppressive American domination. But Russian agribusiness companies would take stakes in Albertan wheat fields and the son of Russia’s prime minister as well as other well-connected Russians would join the board of Canada’s largest oil company just weeks after the coup.
Russia’s ultimate aim, beginning with the imposition of the sanctions on the U.S. economy, would appear to be a “color revolution” in Washington, to overthrow the U.S. government and install a Russia-friendly American president.
This goal would become clear from numerous statements by Russian officials and academics. A former Russian national security adviser would say that the United States should be broken up into three countries and write that Canada would be the stepping stone to this U.S. regime change. If the U.S. loses Canada, he would declare, it would fail to control North America.
But the world’s mainstream media would continue to frame the Canadian crisis as a simple case of “American aggression.”
This fictional scenario perhaps lays bare the absurdity of the U.S. version of events in Ukraine.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist based at the U.N. since 1990. He has written for the Boston Globe, the London Daily Telegraph, the Johannesburg Star, the Montreal Gazette, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @unjoe.
First rate article Mr. Lauria. It just got an even wider audience, through the subscriber-based Johnson’s Russia List, which is where I found it. It would be nice to think that, someday, something other than propaganda will define U.S. policy and public debates. In the meanwhile, it was refreshing to read your essay’s reasoned account.
The tragic, disugusting, and pathetic fact is that Americans just don’t care and proudly ignore Ukrainian events.
You’re being negative, why do you tell me Russian propaganda?
You’re a conspiracy theorist!
Let’s go see Captain America!
In Joseph Kinsey Howard’s 1972 book,” Strange empire : Louis Riel and the Métis people” I have learned that the United States of America has attacked/invaded Canada three times in the last 385 years. The last time being in 1812 at Queenston Heights, Ontario. http://www.ourroots.ca/toc.aspx?id=9083&qryID=ed37b06a-9639-4705-8c99-433a7e72c857
Do I trust American Capitalism or wealth? Not as far as I can see them.
‘O Canada’ sailed into The Yehuda Triangle (New York – London – Tel Aviv)
and out sailed Zio-America Jr.
For me, the biggest problem is that people forget history. I am also a Canadian and I actually thought up that analogy as well about Russia overthrowing our Canadian government. Actually in my scenario, it would be like Quebec voting in the Canadian government. Then the Canadian government is overthrown in a coup. The new coup Canadian Government tries to remove French as an official language in Canada and is overly hostile to the French population in Canada. So the people of Quebec overwhelmingly vote to leave Canada and become part of France again (I believe that we have had 2 referendums both being close to 50% already, so if our government tried to remove French I know for a fact Quebec would be gone). Anyway, that is how I see the Crimea situation.
Back to history, all that someone has to do is look at US backed coups where the US government, using the CIA, paid protesters, paid opposition government officials, and create propaganda campaigns in opposition media. Look back at the coup in Iran in 1953.
CNN: “In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in ’53 Iran coup” (August 19, 2013):
Shortly after Mossadegh’s election, the CIA began to plan his overthrow. The goal of the coup was to elevate the strength of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and appoint a new prime minister — Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi.
*****Before the coup, the agency — along with the British Secret Intelligence Service — helped foment anti-Mossadegh fervor using propaganda, according to CIA documents. “In Iran, CIA and SIS propaganda assets were to conduct an increasingly intensified effort through the press, handbills and the Tehran clergy in a campaign designed to weaken the Mossadeq government in any way possible,” Wilber wrote.*****
*****On August 19, 1953, the coup swung into full effect as the CIA and British intelligence agency helped pull pro-Shah forces together and organized large protests against Mossadegh.*****
“The Army very soon joined the pro-Shah movement and by noon that day it was clear that Tehran, as well as certain provincial areas, were controlled by pro-Shah street groups and Army units,” Wilber wrote. “By the end of 19 August … members of the Mossadeq government were either in hiding or were incarcerated.”
In order to provide Zahedi, the country’s new prime minister, with some stability, the “CIA covertly made available $5,000,000 within two days of Zahedi’s assumptions of power.”
After the coup, Mossadegh was sentenced to death, but the sentence was never carried out. The former leader died in Tehran in 1967.
Also here is the document which has more detail about how the CIA manipulated protests (along with maps):
Yeah, PEI voting to leave Canada does not sound as plausible indeed. Quebec fits the bill much better. And Jean Chretien was prepared to send troops to Quebec after the last referendum. However, the thing I find most ridiculous in this scenario is why on Earth Russia would want to meddle in Canada’s affairs? And in fact this question is the most germane one too. I still cannot understand why the US are meddling in Ukraine as well as in numerous other places. Nobody, Russia, China, nobody does that and even thinks of doing anything like that. And this is very much detrimental to the real US interests too. Can’t understand, really. Well, now and then there have been cases, of course, that some dictator regimes acted against the best interests of their peoples. But aren’t we talking about the model of democracy and all that? LOL, really.
Wow this is one of the BEST articles about how the whole Ukraine debacle went down I’ve ever read. The analogy of Russia fomenting a virulently anti-American coup in Canada, then doing everything it can to fund, train, and arm the new Canadian regime and help them crush the Maritime pro-American provinces is brilliant. This certainly makes it all crystal clear in my mind.
Great job Mr. Lauria! Kudos!
Putin goes to Samurais to Japan . Prime minister the Japanese Shinzo Abe in Sochi would like to invite this year Vladimir Putin to the your small homeland, in Yamaguti’s prefecture .
Expert assessment of Academy of Geopolitics.
TOMORROW IN SOCHI WILL be the PRESIDENT of RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN And the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe WILL MEET. WHAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO WAIT FROM THIS MEETING?
In the conditions of unusual mystery the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe arrives on May 6 to Sochi where will hold an informal meeting with the president of Russia Vladimir Putin. On the eve of a trip both the prime minister, and the persons involved in preparation of visit, interview on this subject didn’t give and didn’t arrange briefings. The reason was obvious – they were afraid, what even the next standard mention that Tokyo would like to receive the Southern Kuriles, will cause an abrupt reply from Moscow that in advance will spoil the atmosphere of an informal meeting in the Russian Black Sea subtropics.
And to swear doesn’t enter plans of Japanese – the prime minister Abe extremely needs success of its trip to Sochi for the sake of which he even dared to ignore council of the U.S. President Barack Obama not to weaken the mode of sanctions excessively active contacts with Russia. In June in Japan the elections to the upper house of parliament, extremely important for the present government, are coming. On the economic front to the prime minister to brag there is nothing – therefore the diplomatic success is necessary. On the American direction stagnation in connection with the coming nearer elections in the USA, with China sharply to make friends isn’t present chances.
And here at a meeting in Sochi the prime minister expects to achieve from the partner of words which can be given out at known dexterity for progress at negotiations on territories. In Tokyo not without the bases count that Russia now nevertheless will depart from limit rigidity which it showed everything the last months when at the different levels I declared that the issue of islands was forever resolved in 1945 and has no relation to signing of the peace treaty. Now, in anticipation of Abe’s visit, from Moscow signal that are ready to speak nevertheless on this subject and to study it at the level of experts, though don’t promise as on Wednesday Dmitry Peskov told, “momentary serious progress”.
And here the Japanese prime minister obviously counts on him. And he, and people from an environment Abes constantly repeat that hope for “historical” shifts across the Southern Kuriles during 2016. When , in their opinion, some the factors, extremely favorable for Tokyo, connect. The USA against presidential race and fast leaving of Obama obviously weaken a grasp which constrained the Far East ally in his maneuvers on the Russian front. Moscow as are sure of Tokyo, is extremely interested in weakening of sanctions or at least in demonstration of that Japan, remaining the closest ally of the USA, insists on active dialogue with Moscow and not in everything observes discipline of the member of “seven”.
That is especially important against that its summit this year will take place at the end of May in Japan – just after Abe’s trip to Sochi. Already one this fact is extremely favorable to Moscow as makes impression of that the current chairman of club of leaders of G-7 on the eve of their annual meeting considers necessary to hold consultations with the head of Russia and to learn his opinion on the major world problems.
In Tokyo count also that present economic difficulties will also make Russia more inclined to dialogue. Showing readiness for cooperation on this direction, the prime minister Abe is lucky in Sochi as it is reported, the program from certain 8 points which , it seems, provide also cooperation in development of hydrocarbons, and development of city infrastructure in Russia, and construction of the medical centers, and assistance in development of the Russian Far East, including agriculture.
Not clearly, as far as all this will seem attractive to Moscow. However the prime minister Abe radiates optimism – information that in case of success of conversations in Sochi he would like to invite this year Vladimir Putin to the small homeland, in Yamaguti’s prefecture known for samurai traditions in the extreme southwest of the main Japanese island of Honshu slipped. That as it is reported, in the informal rural atmosphere , slowly, to talk about destiny of islands even more in details.
The peace treaty between Russia and Japan it isn’t possible to sign without solution of questions with China today.
Arayik Sargsyan, academician, Honorary Consul of Macedonia in Armenia, President of Academy of Geopolitics, the representative of AIC in Syria. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj4J4Ko9kFY
I have often given just this example of Russia-in-Canada vs. US-in-Ukraine.
If Russia had subverted the government of Canada or Mexico by means of a coup, as the US did in Ukraine, and was shelling a few remaining “rebel” cities at the US border, and the US was sending volunteers and supplies to the defenders, advocates of US policy in Ukraine would take the opposite position, proving their falseness. They would claim that the US should do far more than Russia has done to stabilize border states under subversion. Russia has shown far more restraint than the US would, and finally it must protect its borders from military aggression.
Again it is the US right wing demanding power by trumping up foreign monsters to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty.
Frankly, I don’t find the left/right wing paradigm to be so useful in modern politics but nonetheless, most would consider Obama to be center left. It is under Obama’s executive watch that the US has been involved in interventionist disasters in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. As such, your last statement seems like an unreasonable blanket statement. Certainly, most of the right wing politicians who possess any clout are interventionists but so are most of the centrist and center left politicians. Meanwhile, the right wing populists and the libertarian minded people are mostly non-interventionist.
Yes, the libertarians are a curious exception and regard themselves as “right wing.” I am referring to the classical right wing, the “tyrants” described by Aristotle who take over democracies by creating foreign enemies to pose as protectors to demand domestic power and accuse their opponents of disloyalty.
Most of those in the US who call themselves “conservative” in practice conserve nothing but their own wealth and power.
Agreed that most US politicians who call themselves center-left are interventionists with no good cause, and I consider them to be right wing. There are almost zero known left or center-left politicians in the US, because only the right wing is given money to participate in politics.
Jerad… Don’t forget the coup in Honduras in 2009 that was pulled off by a graduate of the School of the America’s located in Fort Benning, Georgia (now WHINSEC) and supported by Hillary Clinton.
Between all of the austerity, a failed upkeep of infrastructure, and unwanted refugee infusions, I see a future of Western Society being attacked from within. Just look at how the American voters are seeking out a candidate of independent stature. This includes especially America’s European cousins, who are also looking for their new savior, as well. On top of all of these wars, which are draining not only people’s lives, but are especially draining our money resources, there are these trade agreements for people to deal with. I think what we are seeing this year, with our US elections, is just a forerunner of what is yet to come, and that maybe a total revolution against the establishment. There is another generation coming upon the scene, and they are angry. Angry, because they are noticing how in debt they are, before they even had a chance to start a life of their own. So, Russia may have fertile ground to help grow dissent inside of Western countries who have signed on to this quest for hegemony. This articles analogy may actually be something which could occur, and Russia may not have to do anything, but watch.
Attached is a letter to the editor of mine that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published back in Feb. 2015. In the letter I point out some of what Mr. Lauria does;
To the editor:
As we sit on the brink of a possible major proxy war between two nuclear armed super powers, an imperfect analogy is illustrative.
Imagine if a foreign nation halfway around the world that’s equipped with thousands of nuclear weapons, fomented a coup d’etat throughout southern Canada using its powerful intelligence agencies and diplomatic muscle. This antagonistic foreign nation then installs a puppet regime on America’s doorstep that’s openly aggressive toward Washington and proceeds to target militarily United States citizens who happen to reside in the southern Canadian provinces. Then imagine that throughout America’s history it had suffered numerous violent and bloody invasions via its northern border.
The U.S. population, entire media establishment, Washington intelligence agencies and U.S. military brass would be deeply alarmed about this hostile nation from halfway around the world that’s caused the coup and all the resultant carnage and upheaval in America’s northern border region.
This is the position Russia currently finds itself in. If we’re to follow Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, it would be the ethical responsibility of the hostile nation that fomented the coup to stand down, halt the propaganda war and rein in its violent proxies.
Amazing that you got your remarks published in a mainstream American newspaper, as any “leftist” ideas are rigorously censored from the American press, even statements by distinguished journalists, scholars and former intelligence operatives who know and wish to share the truth with the American people. Often, I cannot even get comments posted on internet forums, if the “patriotic” position is not in the majority (and sometimes even if it is). My offerings just disappear into the ether, or I am accused of being a paid Putin troll living in St. Petersburg. I am not of Russian extraction and my family has been living in this country since 1850, both sides having come over from Bismarck’s Germany. I am simply someone with a respect for the truth, justice and what used to be the American way. (I fear that even Superman is now a fascist.)
You make all great points Realist.
It was indeed curious that they published my letter, after all, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is the state paper of record in Wisconsin and a major establishment newspaper of course. My letter was buried on a “letters” page that was filled with a slew of other readers’ letters so maybe they figured it wouldn’t really stick out too much. Thanks for reading my post.
Oh, one interesting thing the editorial board did excise out of my letter is a sentence I had included that mentioned how neo-Nazis were involved in the Ukrainian putsch. THAT sentence was carefully excised out and didn’t the see the light of day.
A French documentary film on Ukraine has recently aroused arguments on the topic of Neo-Nazis’ role in Ukraine.
Ukraine – The Masks of the revolution” by Paul Moreira
Several foreign correspondents claim that the film is controversial, gives an untrue picture of the happenings, should not be shown as it enforces Putin’s view of the events. Funny argument about Putin’s view, shouldn’t we have the right to know the arguments of the other side? What if they are correct? The film is rather cruel, showing the burning of the Trade Union House in Odessa, with relatives of the victims telling their stories.
Ukrainian Embassy in Paris tried to stop the film being shown on French TV, Swedish TV had scheduled the film to be shown a few days ago, but has “postponed” it, until they clear out some details with the director. So they say.
Luckily, the film can be viewed on the internet.
Thanks for the info Lisa.
Mr. Robert Parry and other very credible sources have all proven and acknowledged that neo-Nazis indeed made up a part of the coup plotters forces and they also made up a faction of the Ukrainian murderers in southern and eastern Ukraine. It’s no longer an opinion at this point, it’s an incontrovertible fact. Sure, the neo-Nazis weren’t the primary players but they were definitely a piece of the rightwing Ukrainian coup orchestrators and fighting force.