The Rush to a New Cold War

From the Archive: The U.S. and Russia are expelling dozens of each other’s diplomats, bringing bilateral relations to a new low. In this 2015 interview with Dennis Bernstein, the late Robert Parry explained the origins of the New Cold War.

By Dennis J. Bernstein (first published June 29, 2015)

A new Cold War has taken shape between nuclear-armed Russia and the United States with very little public debate, just a return to hostile rhetoric and military moves and counter-moves over Ukraine, an issue that journalist Robert Parry has followed over the past year and a half.

Parry, a longtime Washington-based investigative reporter and editor of, was interviewed about the crisis by Dennis J. Bernstein for Pacifica Radio’s Flashpoint program.

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

DB: It looks like the U.S., with Barack Obama leading the charge, has entered what you call “the second cold war.” What do you mean by the second cold war?

RP:  There has been a sharp increase in tension, obviously, between the United States and Russia. We’ve seen a very divergent way of looking at the problem. The United States and mainstream media have taken a very propagandist view of what occurred in Ukraine. The Russians have taken a very different view, which, perhaps to our amazement, is more accurate than what the United States is saying.

Because of these two divergent narratives, the countries have essentially plunged back into a cold war, where there’s a lot of hostility, threats of military escalations, with the U.S. sending military teams to essentially parade along the western border of Russia. Some of those countries are NATO allies, and others, like Ukraine, may want to become a NATO ally.

So these tensions are building up, that oddly don’t have much direct connection to U.S. national interests, but have become a kind of cause celebre in Official Washington where everyone just wants to stand tough against the Russians and bash Putin. It’s become almost a self-perpetuating dynamic.

The Russians have taken a very different perspective, which is that the United States is encroaching on its borders and threatening them in a strategic manner. They also look at what happened in Ukraine very differently. They see a U.S.-backed coup d’etat in February 2014 that ousted an elected president and put in a regime that is very supportive of free market, neoliberal policies, but also includes very strong right-wing elements, including neo-Nazis and far-right nationalists. A crisis was created and tensions continue to spiral out of control.

DB: Let’s talk about the origins of this cold war rhetoric. First, we have Barack Obama leading the charge. He has become a real cold warrior, hasn’t he?

RP: He’s certainly allowed some of his underlings to use very aggressive rhetoric against the Russians, particularly Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who led the charge in supporting the coup in Ukraine in early 2014.

DB: When you say coup, most people don’t know that occurred. Was there a coup?

RP:  Of course there was. There was an armed uprising that involved some very far right neo-Nazi militias that had been organizing and penetrating into what became the Maidan protests against the decision by the elected President Yanukovych not to go ahead quickly with an association with the European Union. That became increasingly violent; including some mysterious sniper attacks killing police and demonstrators, and getting the two sides to go at each other.

There was a political effort on Feb. 21, 2014, where Yanukovych agreed to reduce his powers and have early elections so he could be elected out of office. It was signed by three European countries to guarantee it. The next day there was a coup. These right-wing groups surged forward, seizing buildings, and Yanukovych barely escaped with his life.

Very quickly, despite the very unconstitutional nature of this change of power, the United States and European Union recognized this as legitimate. But it was obviously something the ethnic Russians, especially those in the eastern and southern Ukraine, found objectionable. They were the bases of support for Yanukovych, so they began to rise up, and this coup d’etat then merged into a civil war.

DB: You have previously said the U.S. played an active role in this coup.

RP: There’s no question. The U.S. was supporting, through the National Endowment for Democracy, scores of political organizations that were working to overthrow the elected government. There were other U.S. entities, like USAID, as well as members of the U.S. government. Sen. John McCain went to Kiev, spoke to this very right-wing group, and said the U.S. supports you and what you are doing.

Then there was the famous phone conversation that was intercepted between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Jeffrey Pyatt where they discussed who was going to take over after the change of power. Nuland put forward that Yatsenyuk “is the guy,” who after the coup became the prime minister. There were all the markings of a coup d’etat. More neutral observers, who have looked at this, including the head of the Stratfor think tank (George Friedman), have called it the most obvious coup he’s ever seen.

That was the reality, but the U.S. news media and U.S. government chose to present it in a very different way. The Yanukovych government just left the scene, or something, is how the New York Times presented it. That wasn’t real, but that’s how they sold it to the American people.

We have two very distinct ways of looking at this. One is the ethnic Russians of Ukraine who saw their president violently overthrown, and the other is the western Ukrainians, backed by the U.S., and in some degree the European Union, saying they got rid of a corrupt leader, through a revolution, if you will. That became the core problem between the U.S. and Russians. Instead of finding common factual points to agree on, there are these two distinctly different narratives about what went on there.

DB: In Germany, recently, Obama himself carried this forward.

RP: Obama has been all over the map on this. In May, he sent Secretary of State Kerry to meet with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Sochi, Russia. Those meetings, by all accounts, went very well in that Kerry was looking for Russian help on a variety of international problems, including Syria, Libya, the Iranian nuclear talks, and so forth. These are areas where Putin has been very helpful in the past in terms of U.S. policy. There was a general meeting of the minds, it seemed.

But after Kerry returned, Obama seemed to swing back, to go more with his hardliners. That was followed by the recent G7 Summit in Bavaria, at which Obama pushed for a continuation of economic sanctions against Russia. He continued to blame Russia for all the problems of Ukraine. He pretended that the Russians were the problem for why the Minsk 2 Peace Accord had not been going forward, even though the accord was essentially Putin’s idea that he sold to the Germans and the French. It’s really the Kiev regime that has tried to derail the Minsk 2 agreement from the very time it was signed.

Yet Obama took aggressive positions in Bavaria, including personal insults directed at Putin. Now we are back into this idea that we must have a confrontation with Russia. We’re seeing this play out not just at the government level, but now also at the media level. At the more popular level, the New York Times and other major news organizations essentially are acting as propaganda agents for the U.S. government, by simply conveying whatever the government says as fact, and not something to be checked out.

DB: You are saying this as somebody who is based outside the Beltway, correct?

RP: No, I’m actually inside the Beltway.

DB: Good, I feel better now that you’re in there. Where could this kind of policy lead? You’ve expressed concerns that we are dealing with two major nuclear powers. We have a man in Russia who will not be fooled with public relations, given that he was a master of it as head of the KGB. So where is this going?

RP: It has very dangerous possibilities. One hopes, of course, that cooler heads will prevail. But we see that when people paint themselves into corners, they sometimes don’t want to get into the embarrassment of getting themselves out. The more rhetoric and propaganda you throw into this, the harder it is for people to come to some common ground, reach an agreement and work things out.

There’s been this idea among the neoconservatives in Washington, for some time now, that the real goal here is to oust Putin. As Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, said back in 2013, Ukraine is “the biggest prize.” But he made clear that it was simply a stepping-stone to removing Putin as the President of Russia, doing some sort of regime change in Moscow.

What the neocons often fail to understand, as we’ve seen very painfully in places like Iraq, is they think things are going to be easy, they can simply put in somebody like Chalabi in Baghdad and everything will work out fine. But that often isn’t the way it goes. In the case of Russia, the great danger is that if the U.S. could destabilize Russia, somehow create a political crisis there, it’s very possible that instead of an easily manipulated person like Yeltsin, there would be a super hard-line nationalist taking over, taking a harder line than Putin. Then you can get into a situation where a nuclear confrontation would become a very real possibility.

To deal with that kind of dangerous reality and be reasonable, the U.S. needs to realize that the ethnic Russians in Ukraine have a legitimate beef, and they are not simply part of a Russian invasion or aggression. Both sides have some argument here. All the truth does not rest in Washington DC and I would argue that less of it rests in Washington DC. If you don’t deal with people honestly and straightforwardly, and try to understand their concern, a manageable crisis can turn into one that spins out of control.

DB: I have always thought that to some degree that the New York Times and Washington Post, on foreign policy issues, particularly East and West, have often acted as a wing, an arm, a public relations division of the State Department. Is that getting worse?

RP:  Yes, it’s been a problem. In 2002 and 2003, the Washington Post and New York Times essentially led the drive for believing that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the only answer was to invade Iraq. We’ve seen what that led to. The great irony here is that as much as the Washington press corps pretends it stands for truth and all these good things, there was virtually no accountability assessed upon people who misreported that story.

It’s true that there’s safety in numbers. All the important journalists got the story wrong and almost none of them were punished. They were allowed to go on, many in the same positions that they held then. Michael Gordon is still the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times. He was one of the co-authors of the famous aluminum tube story, that these tubes being used for nuclear centrifuges, when they weren’t fit for that at all. Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of the Washington Post, said as flat fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction back in 2002 and 2003. He’s still in the same job.

There’s a problem of no accountability, so many of these news organizations go from one catastrophic inability to report honestly about what is going on in the world, to the next. Now they’ve upped the ante to a possible confrontation between nuclear-armed Russia and nuclear-armed United States. We are now back into the cold war mentality. The New York Times had a piece this week essentially suggesting that anybody who doesn’t go along with the U.S. version of events must be working for Moscow.

We are starting to see McCarthyism rear its ugly head as well. Once you get into these kinds of propaganda wars, anyone who challenges or questions them has their patriotism questioned. We saw that somewhat in Iraq when people who questioned the WMD story early were called Saddam apologists. Now we’re seeing something similar happening. If you point out some of these inconvenient facts that don’t make the Kiev regime look too good, you’re accused of being a stooge of Moscow.

DB: I am concerned that this kind of policy is going to continue. And it’s not Saddam Hussein now, but Vladimir Putin, who has extreme experience, about how to play public relations games. And he has a nuclear arsenal, so it’s a whole different game here.

RP: The American propaganda barrage has not at all swayed the Russian people and government. Of course, the U.S. says they are all being propagandized by Russia Today and other Russian networks. Frankly, one can argue with some ways some things have been reported by RT or other Russian sources, but they have been doing a more accurate, on-the-ground job than the U.S. press corps has been.

You can point to a number of egregious major mistakes made by the major U.S. news organizations. The New York Times went along with a bogus photograph from spring 2014 supposedly showing Russian troops in Ukraine. It turned out that some of the photographs were misrepresented and did not show what they were supposed to show. They [the Times writers] were forced to retract that.

You can point to factual errors on both sides, but it’s not something where the U.S., as the New York Times tries to present it, is perfect and hasn’t presented anything improperly, while the Russian media are all lies and propaganda. It’s not true. But it’s getting to the point where you cannot be a reasonable person, or look at things objectively, because you are pushed into taking sides.

That’s where journalism is a very dangerous thing – especially here. There was a lot of dangerous reporting during the cold war that in some cases pushed the two sides into dangerous confrontations. That can happen again. We were lucky to escape the ’60s without a nuclear war. Now we are rushing ourselves back into something that William Polk, a writer and former diplomat of the Kennedy administration, has called a possible Cuban missile crisis in reverse.

This time we’re the ones pushing our military forces onto the Russian border, rather than the Russians putting missiles onto a place like Cuba. We know how Americans reacted to that. Now the Russians are facing something very similar.

Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom.  You can access the audio archives at

38 comments for “The Rush to a New Cold War

  1. Aussidawg
    April 3, 2018 at 02:20

    I will admit, I’m no genius. However, I honestly fail to see what the ruling elites (the money changers), and the neocon warmongers think they have to gain by provoking an adversary far more formidable than Iraq, Libya, or even Syria (who they failed to defeat in spite of superior weaponry). These fools are poking the proverbial King Cobra with a really short stick and quite possibly getting every living creature on this Goldilocks planet vaporized or at least sterilized by radiation or nuclear winter. Why? Okay, perhaps greed and an insatiable lust for power, ok. Do they plan on emerging from their luxury bunkers to rule the cockroaches??? Ladies and gentilemen, I think it is time for us to perhaps fight back against the oligarchs. If we don’t and don’t do so quickly Monday night football may not be aired this Monday, next Monday, or ever again. Think about that ok? Russia doesn’t want to fight us in a war. They want a multipolar world where nobody rules but we engage in peaceful world commerce instead. So what’s wrong with that? Oh I know, our greedy, self serving elites want it all for themselves. Look, isn’t it time to spank these brats then put them in a cage where they can no longer harm anyone?

  2. March 30, 2018 at 23:23

    A little postscript: Vladimir Putin never was head of the KGB. (His bio is in plain sight including in Wikipedia.) He was stationed in East Germany as a translator at age 23 out of law school, worked for KGB for 16 yrs. till the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union and then went into local politics in Leningrad (St. Petersburg), where he’s from.

  3. CitizenOne
    March 30, 2018 at 23:21

    Waiting for the next attack on someone in Syria. Already happening in the cluster fu*k media as it reports US and UK military persons were killed in an attack. I fear it is time for the media and the western governments to create some other sensational event to draw the US back into the Syrian war. We keep being drawn into this battle and it seems we might be faced with a straw bidder in the war. This will be the second time or third time Trump announced his intentions to pull out of Syria only to have some event reverse his decision. One has to ask what is the payoff? Are Trump’s public announcements coordinated to create some sudden urgent reason to redouble our efforts there again?

    I think Trump has hit upon a great narrative to fool the people into believing he is pulling out when in fact he has no intention of pulling out of Syria. Just using the public like a twitter post that inflames the situation while Trump laughs at “the idiots” who respond. Might as well have Hannity in the White House. Perhaps he will get the next appointment as Trump’s special advisor since Bolton secured a seat by speaking to the president who only watches Fox News.

    Let’s hope that not every Fox contributor finds a home in the White House.

    Some kind of event is no doubt about to unfold which will have the media clamoring over themselves to support the narrative of the deep state and urge Trump to go back into Syria.

    This is “Permawar” an unending game of falsehoods and propaganda designed to lure us into further military foreign adventures.

    We have no business doing what we are doing except for the business we are doing.

  4. phillip sawicki
    March 30, 2018 at 14:08

    What I”m about to say is not much consolation at a time like this, but here it is. In 2003 one of the leading WaPo voices for the invasion was a journalist named Michael Kelly, who had previously been editor of the Atlantic. Kelly was such an ardent hawk that he went to Iraq and climbed into a humvee with a military driver. The humvee then rolled over and fell into a water-filled canal. Kelly and the driver both died. The Post tried to turn Kelly into a hero or something. I thought his death was one of those rare instances of poetic justice.

    • mike k
      March 30, 2018 at 15:59

      It’s hard not to have revenge thoughts in the current milieu, but persistent rejection of them can lead to their lessening, and the hope that one may be free of them for good eventually. At least, that’s my experience. Such thoughts only poison our own minds, and do nothing to those we target.

      • Mild-ly - Facetious
        March 30, 2018 at 16:35

        Proverbs, Chapter 3. – -Find it, Think on it… .

  5. Mike Morrison
    March 30, 2018 at 13:23

    One more step in The Rush to a New Cold War.

  6. Jeff
    March 30, 2018 at 13:16

    It’s good to read Mr. Parry again. It’s also very discouraging to realize that the US has demonstrated the truth of Adolph Hitler’s line: “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.” That’s exactly what we have done and are doing.

    • Mild-ly - Facetious
      March 30, 2018 at 14:36
    • Jose
      March 30, 2018 at 15:56

      Dear Jeff: it’s always good to read Mr. Parry. Since I have been doing so, He has tought me that you have to stop listening to the US National media and get your news elsewhere. It’s incisiveness and truthfulness are dearly miss. In this interview, it’s hard not to concur with his points of view. Why? Because he is a master in laying the facts for anybody to see and comprehend. Well done Jeff.

  7. Jose
    March 30, 2018 at 12:20

    When a superb and honest reporter such as Mr Parry asserts that Russian media “have been doing a more accurate, on-the-ground job than the U.S. press corps has been.” This Should tell anybody how manipulative and dishonest US media have been and will continue to be. I think that US National media are a complete disgrace serving only the interests of those in power: Their servility only serves to underscore their own arrogance.

    • Mild-ly - Facetious
      March 30, 2018 at 16:22

      don’t be hood-winked by the media
      kaleidoscope of commentary or opinion.
      Reality is seen in What Trump Is Doing
      to We The People as opposed to what
      Trump is doing For Corporate Interests
      in America as affect to Americans’ lives
      as if, “Making America Great Again” was
      based upon making the rich richer, and not
      advancing the lives of every day citizens/
      The Majority of 350,000 million People

      worthy or worthless, whom you were elected to,
      who you gave Oath to “Serve and Protect”,
      but do now, by gov’t policy procedurally
      Dismantle through your Appointments to
      Administrative Agencies with express intent
      to misappropriate the peoples’ rights
      in favor of the Right of Corporations to
      in America, the purported “Land-Of-The-Free
      now home to the Koch Brothers’ oligarchy AKA;

      The New Corporate Sponsored
      Government of the United States.
      Don’t get caught up in the Hype of MAGA
      m-a-g-a means the elimination/dissociation/
      separation of haves and have-nots into
      clustered irregular separated groups AKA
      haves and have nots featuring massive
      die-offs among the struggling-to-survive
      as the wealthy take monumentally expensive
      flights into the new universe of outer space and-


      • jose
        March 30, 2018 at 21:35

        I enjoy your response even though I think it misses the chief point of this article. By the way, I believe firmly that the only thing the meek will inherit is a pile of debt. Do not take my word for it: Just read the economic reports stating how their has been a massive wealth distribution trickling upward. Good Answer.

  8. March 30, 2018 at 11:30

    At Easter time I would be nice to say there is a viable peace movement in America or anywhere else in the world with any oomph but there isn’t. Putin, ever the pragmatist, sincerely wants peace and a worldwide effort for peace because he knows what would happen to Russia if a hot war and direct confrontation would occur and sees the benefits of peace for the Russian people. Europe and America are solidly in the confrontation and provocation mode so this Easter things don’t look so good, Easter, a symbol of hope regardless of your religious beliefs, is a time to hope. If you can pray, wouldn’t hurt to say one.

    • mike k
      March 30, 2018 at 15:52

      Good idea ‘Herman. When things are beyond your control, ask for help.

      • March 31, 2018 at 08:36

        Mike, might not be a bad idea not to wait. Kind of hypocritical to pray only when you’re losing.

  9. mike k
    March 30, 2018 at 10:35

    The US is the world bully. Bullies need to pick fights and threaten others – it’s their whole MO, their identity. They believe they can make others submit to them by force. They are immune and unresponsive to reasoning or negotiation. The only way to defeat them is by taking away their power. How to do this is the thorny problem facing the peace loving people of Earth. And I do not include in their number those many who entertain some vague sentiments in favor of peace, but do nothing substantial to bring it about.

  10. Mike Morrison
    March 30, 2018 at 08:38

    Ukraine’s 19th attempt at a ceasefire, the Easter truce.

  11. Anna
    March 30, 2018 at 08:20

    “The American propaganda barrage has not at all swayed the Russian people and government.”
    — The zionized MSM is not able to imagine the homogeneity of the population of Russain federation as well as the general level of education in Russia. The MSM tailors its messages for the cognitively impaired in the US/EU. These messages both puzzle and entertain the Russians. The puzzlement comes as a reaction to the obvious lies and documented crimes that have been committed by western countries during last 17 years.
    “The “moderate rebels” of Ghouta,” by Thierry Meyssan:
    “All of these groups [of “moderate rebels”] and countless others have well-designed flags and logos as well as quality videos. All of this communication material is manufactured by the United Kingdom. In 2007, it had a war propaganda unit, the Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU) headed by MI6 (Secret Service) officer Jonathan Allen. Starting from the chemical weapons case in the summer of 2013, the RICU financed an external company to assist the communication of combatants in Syria (and subsequently those of Yemen). It was initially Regester Larkin, then Innovative Communications & Strategies (InCoStrat). Both companies are headed by an MI6 officer, Colonel Paul Tilley. Jonathan Allen has become number two in the UK permanent representation at the United Nations. He is currently leading the Security Council against Russia and Syria.”
    — Jonathan Allen, a chief coordinator of “moderate rebels” in Syria, is also a “righteous voice” of the UK in the Skripal affairs. This affair has exposed the UK with its pants down:
    “The Syrian Foreign Ministry pointed out that more than 40 tons of poisonous substances were found on the territories, liberated from terrorists. … Editor’s Note: “British Intel was out of its mind to get sucked into this fiasco. Even the dead will know that the Brits are now the suspect number one…” “The shift in focus of the 87th session of the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) Executive Council from the Syrian chemical dossier to the unsubstantiated accusations against Russia over the chemical attack in Salisbury and the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention only confirms the conclusion that the coalition’s goals have been thwarted…”
    — or this morsel from Thierry Meyssan article: “Mohammed Allouche created the Unified Judicial Council, which imposed the Saudi version of Sharia law on all Ghouta residents. He notably organized executions of homosexuals, thrown from the roof of buildings. He represents the group at the UN negotiations in Geneva. The Allouche family is now comfortably settled in London.” – No kidding.

  12. Sally Snyder
    March 30, 2018 at 08:20

    Here is a look at how Russians view Americans and their relationship with the United States:

    It is apparent that any hope of improving relations between the two nations after the election of what appeared to be a relatively pro-Putin Donald Trump have evaporated, thanks, in large part, to the anti-Russia narrative proposed by Washington and propagated by the mainstream media.

    • Joe Tedesky
      March 30, 2018 at 10:16

      Yes Sally it is like the U.S. will never be ready to accept Russia for it being Russia as it is. Here is what we lost. Joe

      I’ve posted this several times over the years, so for the regulars here this is nothing new, but for those who have never read it read it and then ponder to what we all lose.

  13. Babyl-on
    March 30, 2018 at 08:12

    Small rant: I am reminded of the story about J. P. Morgan and how one day he got a stock tip from a shoeshine boy and understood immediately the markets were about to crash.

    Commentators, analysts, journalists of all kinds from this site to Brightbart claim there is a “New Cold War” — this is not 1950. What we are witnessing is a full on aggression by the AngloZionist/Wahhabi empire against all territories where it does not exercise hegemonic power, where the Neofeudal monopolists have not yet captured the markets. Look at Syria a proxy war with lots of heat.

    The AngloZionist/Wahhabi Empire has one and only one policy goal above all others “Global full spectrum domination.” The war against the rest of the world began August 6, 1945. There has never been a Cold War because throughout the time referred to as a Cold War the Western Empire was slaughtering people by the millions.

    What does the term even mean? Proxy wars in multiple locations around the globe the people dying in them are not dying from the “Cold”

    • Joe Tedesky
      March 30, 2018 at 10:12

      You maybe the wisest of all Babyl-on calling this not another Cold War but this new situation being something much more fearful for what it’s evolving outcome may lead too. Joe

    • mike k
      March 30, 2018 at 10:23

      Good point, “cold” in the case of war means deadly.

  14. Mike Morrison
    March 30, 2018 at 07:53

    Todays, (3-30-2018), situation in the not so cold war in the Donbass, Ukraine.

  15. March 30, 2018 at 07:35

    It’s always good to hear/read the Pravda – again . It may surprise many folks how well informed the Russian people are about the honest and courageous writers in the US and other places. When i told my Russian wife that Robert Parry passed away – she said – ” the writer – Parry”? She speaks limited English and has never been to the states but knew Robert Parry’s writings from the Russian sites. She knows others also – Craig Roberts, Chris Hedges, and others. We are both pensioners, but you would be amazed at the similarities of the old Soviet people and us older No. Americans. We both agree that things were much easier in our day, people helped one another – always, we weren’t rich but had more pleasure in life, and everyone had a job and respected one another on the job. So, it was not a surprise to me that Crimea would vote to head back to RU – there are many many pensioners here in Florida- I mean Crimea LOL.. Spacibo Bolshoy Consortium and we love the commenters – Dva

    • mike k
      March 30, 2018 at 10:19

      Welcome to our little truth nest Crimean.

    • Piotr Berman
      March 30, 2018 at 12:50

      Your Russians seems more sketchy than expected from a Crimean. “Thanks, O Great Consortium”? Both Thanks and Consortium are neutral, so Bolshoye spasibo, Konsorshium, or Spasobo, Bolshoye Konsorshium.

      • April 3, 2018 at 12:06

        I am from Alaska – and spent my adult life there–I can write the way I — want to write. Spacibo — C is s — OooKKK ?

  16. Anon
    March 30, 2018 at 06:49

    Notice that there is not a single player in the US fake story of Ukraine who is not zionist.
    The core are Jewish: Kagan, Nuland, Gershwin, NYT, WaPo, NED.
    The few who are not owe their jobs or campaign funds to their zionism: Obama, Clinton, et al.
    The exact same situation is true in US operations and propaganda against Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.
    Every single source of lies about Russia is a zionist dependent of zionists.
    Couldn’t be that they are attacking Russia for not letting Israel steal land in the Mideast, could it?

    • Piotr Berman
      March 30, 2018 at 12:43

      But in Canada the matter is taken care of by descendants of the Banderista, it so happens that Canadian-Ukrainian have more sway in Canada than American Ukrainians in USA.

      In USA, in a story on flower gardens Jews would have a major role, same for tilapia farming and thus, why not in the case of Ukraine?

  17. Bob Van Noy
    March 30, 2018 at 05:48

    “What the neocons often fail to understand, as we’ve seen very painfully in places like Iraq, is they think things are going to be easy, they can simply put in somebody like Chalabi in Baghdad and everything will work out fine. But that often isn’t the way it goes.” Robert Parry

    Ever the Teacher as well as Journalist, Robert Parry got it right! All of the Neocons talk in a circle, they only know what they think they know. Their basic assumptions are, and always have been wrong. The problem is, that they have maneuvered themselves into positions of extreme power. They have to be exposed to public trial, so that we can hear for ourselves what they actually want, so that we can publicly disagree. They are not elected, even in a flawed system, and don’t speak for a significant number of our population.
    Thank you Robert Parry.

    There is an important new book now available by F. William Engdahl called “Manifest Destiny, Democracy as Cognative Dissonance,” that I encourage the readers here to get and read. It is a truly revelatory account of our contemporary government. We the people of the commons, must now allow ourselves in on the “conversation”. It truly is that simple.

    Thank you CN! The best site on the web…

    • Joe Tedesky
      March 30, 2018 at 10:08

      Bob may I add, that all this rustling and poking at Russia is all due to the U.S. standing up for a few Zio-Oligarchs in Russia who Putin destroyed their Oligarchic rape of the Russian people’s economy. Joe

  18. john wilson
    March 30, 2018 at 05:16

    And all this has been based on a bare faced lie. The so called chemical that was said to be totally deadly appears not be so deadly because the policeman in the Skripal case who was said to be at deaths door, has now recovered. He appeared on TV in full uniform looking a picture of health. Skripal’s daughter is now apparently recovering and is talking to hospital staff. All the people like the public, ambulance staff and hospital emergency room staff have shown no signs of illness due to contact with the Skripals. In fact an indignant emergency room doctor who was incensed by the reporting of illness to hospital workers etc, actually wrote to his local news paper (not part of MSM) to say that no one at the hospital was ill at all. If the daughter does indeed make a recovery and wants to return to Russia and has a different story to tell, then I fear for her safety as British and US intelligence gangsters will surely murder her.

    • john wilson
      March 30, 2018 at 09:29

      PS: to my post above. The latest rubbish from the British government spooks is that they now think the poison that the Skripals were affected by was on the door knob all the time. Its becoming almost funny. The police and others have been going in and out of Skripals house for the last 25 days so they should all be dead by now. By the way, on the day the Skripals left their house to go out it was EXTREMELY cold outside, so how did the perpetrator of this fantasy nerve agent not realise that skripals might be wearing gloves so could not have touched the door knob on the way out. Anyway, did they both close the door at the same time? This is now becoming the farce of the century and is making the government look like total rsoles and even bigger fools that they usually look. The UK parliament has become a circus with Boris Johnson playing the part of chief clown. God help us all !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.