Without historical context, which is buried by corporate media, it’s impossible to understand Ukraine. Historians will tell the story, but journalists are cut short for trying to tell it now.
After a history of U.S. bullying and humiliation — from a broken promise not to expand NATO to deceit over Minsk — it can’t be assumed Moscow is bluffing when it warns of nuclear war.
Because of their grossly inaccurate assessments of the Russian president and his country, “Putin Whisperers” in the West have Ukrainian blood on their hands.
Declassified files show how Russia’s president, during the 1990s, repeatedly told Western counterparts he was “not against” expansion of the military alliance, Matt Kennard reports. He even devised an agreement to bring the Russian people onside.
A dismal piece of Washington Post propaganda gearing up for a postwar, fully neoliberalized Ukraine leaves readers precisely where Jeff Bezos would want them, writes Patrick Lawrence.
There is an almost Shakespearean tragic quality about the late Soviet leader’s 1985-90 time in power, writes Tony Kevin. But Russian historians of the future may have reason to treat him kindly.
Once the Russian government decided that integration with Europe and the U.S. was not possible, the West began to portray Putin as diabolical, writes Vijay Prashad.
The formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the rearmament of Germany confirmed that for the United States, the war in Europe was not entirely over. It still isn’t.