• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

Is Investigative Reporter Parry's narrative accurate?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
   Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :  Information Clearing House - ICH

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

America and Russia have two nearly opposite narratives on Ukraine, which is more an indictment of the U.S. news media which feigns objectivity but disseminates what amounts to propaganda. These divergent narratives are driving the world toward a possible nuclear crisis.

By Robert Parry

February 07, 2015 "
ICH" - "Consortium News"- The U.S. government and mainstream media are swaggering toward a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia over Ukraine without any of the seriousness that has informed this sort of decision-making throughout the nuclear age. Instead, Official Washington seems possessed by a self-righteous goofiness that could be the prelude to the end of life on this planet. Nearly across the U.S. political spectrum, there is a pugnacious “group think” which has transformed what should have been a manageable political dispute in Ukraine into some morality play where U.S. politicians and pundits blather on about how the nearly year-old coup regime in Kiev “shares our values” and how America must be prepared to defend this regime militarily.
Though I’m told that President Barack Obama personally recognizes how foolhardy this attitude is, he has made no significant move to head off the craziness and, indeed, has tolerated provocative actions by his underlings, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s scheming with coup plotters to overthrow Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
Obama also has withheld from the American people intelligence information that undercuts some of the more extreme claims that his administration has made. For instance, I’m told that he has detailed intelligence reporting on both the mysterious sniper attack that preceded the putsch nearly a year ago and the shoot-down of the Malaysia Airlines Flights 17 that deepened the crisis last summer. But he won’t release the findings.
More broadly over the last year, Obama’s behavior – ranging from his initial neglect of the Ukraine issue, as Nuland’s coup plotting unfolded, to his own participation in the tough talk, such as boasting during his State of the Union address that he had helped put the Russian economy “in tatters” – ranks as one of the most irresponsible performances by a U.S. president.

   Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :  Information Clearing House - ICH


Why doesn't MSM media investigate Ukraine?
Are we supporting crooks and Nazis in Ukraine?
Is it wise to war with your largest trading partner?
Is investigative reporter Robert Parry's synopsis of events accurate? Poll Question
 
Ukrainians are ready to fight for their freedom from Russia, but it does not has to come all the way to a nuke war.
 
Ukrainians are ready to fight for their freedom from Russia, but it does not has to come all the way to a nuke war.

No it doesn't. That is why the U.S. should stay out of it. If Ukraine wants to do that, let them do so on their own.
 
No it doesn't. That is why the U.S. should stay out of it. If Ukraine wants to do that, let them do so on their own.

To clarify, the position issued was: US and EU can help Ukraine with other means that do not have to resort to nukes.

Some help may be necessary!
 
To clarify, the position issued was: US and EU can help Ukraine with other means that do not have to resort to nukes.

Some help may be necessary!

It may be necessary for Ukraine. It is not necessary to the U.S.
 
No problem with that. Except, I believe the USA will independently wish to join with us also.

Why? The article linked is by an investigative reporter, not a quote from a politician, not a release from the Pentagon,
not an opinion from a war hawk, not a stenographic moment from a talking head, not from the desks of the perception
management distributors, and is likely exact facts of the Ukrainian situation. I am all in for helping the Ukrainian
citizens. You don't help anyone with war. Kiev took the war to Donbass. I honestly believe Russia wants to help, but
will not allow NATO a few hundred miles from Moscow, and neither would I. Kiev seems to be all crooks and liars. The
average citizen is the biggest loser if war continues and the Kiev regime continues. This war is about business and that
is why you read about Hunter Biden and business deals. This isn't about helping Ukrainians. Draw a mental parralel as
you recall the USA helping those Iraqis and Libyans and Syrians, and Hondurans, and Vietnamese.
 
No problem with that. Except, I believe the USA will independently wish to join with us also.

I hope not. I don't want my tax money going to waste.
 
** Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :* Information Clearing House - ICH

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

America and Russia have two nearly opposite narratives on Ukraine, which is more an indictment of the U.S. news media which feigns objectivity but disseminates what amounts to propaganda. These divergent narratives are driving the world toward a possible nuclear crisis.

By Robert Parry

February 07, 2015 "
ICH" - "Consortium News"- The U.S. government and mainstream media are swaggering toward a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia over Ukraine without any of the seriousness that has informed this sort of decision-making throughout the nuclear age. Instead, Official Washington seems possessed by a self-righteous goofiness that could be the prelude to the end of life on this planet. Nearly across the U.S. political spectrum, there is a pugnacious “group think” which has transformed what should have been a manageable political dispute in Ukraine into some morality play where U.S. politicians and pundits blather on about how the nearly year-old coup regime in Kiev “shares our values” and how America must be prepared to defend this regime militarily.
Though I’m told that President Barack Obama personally recognizes how foolhardy this attitude is, he has made no significant move to head off the craziness and, indeed, has tolerated provocative actions by his underlings, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s scheming with coup plotters to overthrow Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
Obama also has withheld from the American people intelligence information that undercuts some of the more extreme claims that his administration has made. For instance, I’m told that he has detailed intelligence reporting on both the mysterious sniper attack that preceded the putsch nearly a year ago and the shoot-down of the Malaysia Airlines Flights 17 that deepened the crisis last summer. But he won’t release the findings.
More broadly over the last year, Obama’s behavior – ranging from his initial neglect of the Ukraine issue, as Nuland’s coup plotting unfolded, to his own participation in the tough talk, such as boasting during his State of the Union address that he had helped put the Russian economy “in tatters” – ranks as one of the most irresponsible performances by a U.S. president.

** Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :* Information Clearing House - ICH


Why doesn't MSM media investigate Ukraine?
Are we supporting crooks and Nazis in Ukraine?
Is it wise to war with your largest trading partner?
Is investigative reporter Robert Parry's synopsis of events accurate? Poll Question

It does not really make much difference who is right and who is wrong. The fact is that the crisis is escalating and the Russians are preparing for nuclear war*), while they continue to militarily take Land from a European country. The Eu is letting it happen and the US is so far leaving the situation in their hands. Ukraine made a treaty with Russia, some Europeans and the US by which they gave up their nuclear weapons for the guarantee not to be attacked with nukes. They now have none anymore and look!

This is a precedence that every strongman in the world is watching. The consequences will be very costly and can impact situations from Venezuela over Poland and Kuwait and Iran and Pakistan to Japan or Taiwan. This is certainly bad news and the war that the EU allowed to happen or even caused is making the big war much more probable.


*) UK concerned over 'threatening' Russian nuclear strategy
 
Let the EU do it then.

That is more or less, what the US has done. The EU started this and the US has only helped them here or there, but mostly let them lead. They are creating a real and ultra dangerous mess and the populations in Germany at least do not even see the implications. They are talking about the US threatening war in Europe without understanding that the war in Europe is already very real and that it will depend on stopping Putin from grabbing the territory with impunity. If they do not, there is no reason not to take the Baltic States or Poland or Finland.

That would be bad enough. But the fallout will occur in Japan or Kuwait or Iran or Venezuela. We don't know where. But with the US and EU effectively unwilling to act, we do know that the precedence is being carefully monitored by the heavies all around the world and they are seeing that aggression pays off big time and that it is worth getting a nuclear bomb as well.
 
To clarify, the position issued was: US and EU can help Ukraine with other means that do not have to resort to nukes.

Some help may be necessary!

But it is a problem created by the EU and being handled by the EU. I really do not think the US should do, what is obviously required. If the EU wants to let Russia gut their Treaty partner and show the Russians that they will not protect European countries it will be catastrophic for Europe. But not immediately. It will take 5 or 6 years, before the next grab comes up. Alternatively Europe will bow to Russian hegemony, which is a very real possibility.
 
It does not really make much difference who is right and who is wrong. The fact is that the crisis is escalating and the Russians are preparing for nuclear war*), while they continue to militarily take Land from a European country. The Eu is letting it happen and the US is so far leaving the situation in their hands. Ukraine made a treaty with Russia, some Europeans and the US by which they gave up their nuclear weapons for the guarantee not to be attacked with nukes. They now have none anymore and look!

This is a precedence that every strongman in the world is watching. The consequences will be very costly and can impact situations from Venezuela over Poland and Kuwait and Iran and Pakistan to Japan or Taiwan. This is certainly bad news and the war that the EU allowed to happen or even caused is making the big war much more probable.


*) UK concerned over 'threatening' Russian nuclear strategy

This war is about Central Banks and economies and natural resources and strategic demographics. The US has to control all the World's banks or face an eventual crash. We've got our toadies, the EU and UK, by the short hairs, so they have to go along. Japan is trapped, so they go along. The US, UK, EU, and Japan represent about 60% of the World's capital and this is just above the balance point where their power will be diminished significantly (50%), We are attempting to crush Russia economically to minimize the Russian alliance with China and India and BRICS Nations. If the US fails, the PetroDollar is out the window, the USA will no longer have Reserve Currency status and that will require that our currency be backed by something other than faith. For example, my ol' buddy, Justin O. Peewillie, is part-time employed as a greeter at WallyWorld, and owes various banks and loan companies and payment committments to account for all of his income for the next 10 years. Justin wants to print his own money to pay his debts, like the US did in 2007-8, because he is strong in the faith, don't ya' know? He has explained that if all his overseas creditors hold his fiat currency as surplus capital and it doesn't come back to the US, then all is well. If it does come back, Justin loses whatever he owns. Pretty simple, just like the Federal Reserve and US Treasury. I've suggested to Justin that he only deal with overseas customers for his money, because it doesn't generate a lot of faith locally. Justin told me he is considering printing a little extra to accommodate the demands of Quantitive Easing and also lower the value of the currency after he gets it shifted overseas. A modicum of manipulation may be required at this point, but Justin assures me that current markets have nothing to do with supply and demand but controlled naked shorts and Exponential quantity positions. There is big profit to be made with currency mythical values and he used Switzerland as an example. And to top it all off, it's not illegal or SNB and BIS would be indicted, don't ya' know. It's a dream world when you can write checks that will never be cashed, like petrodollars, eh?
 
That is more or less, what the US has done. The EU started this and the US has only helped them here or there, but mostly let them lead. They are creating a real and ultra dangerous mess and the populations in Germany at least do not even see the implications. They are talking about the US threatening war in Europe without understanding that the war in Europe is already very real and that it will depend on stopping Putin from grabbing the territory with impunity. If they do not, there is no reason not to take the Baltic States or Poland or Finland.

That would be bad enough. But the fallout will occur in Japan or Kuwait or Iran or Venezuela. We don't know where. But with the US and EU effectively unwilling to act, we do know that the precedence is being carefully monitored by the heavies all around the world and they are seeing that aggression pays off big time and that it is worth getting a nuclear bomb as well.

I disagree with you somewhat. The Baltic states are a different matter because they are in NATO. As such we are committed to their security and I think that Putin understands that. If he does not and tries that, then the gloves are off. Over and above that, Russia can hardly afford what they are doing in Ukraine what to speak of launching a war in the Baltics or over here in the western hemisphere. I think that although Putin is a concern, you have greatly over exaggerated the potential threat.
 
I would say the writer's assessment is fairly accurate in its indictment of media generally and US media specifically (other than the hearsay he suggests), but then again, what else is new?

Why doesn't MSM media investigate Ukraine?
Because media is too easily distracted by other flashy stories like fergusan* and the grammys and don't find themselves obliged to inform a generally disinterested public until a serious crisis develops.

Are we supporting crooks and Nazis in Ukraine?
Are there Neo Nazis in the Kiev camp? Yes. Are there despotic communists in the Rebel/Russian camp? Yes. Are they all crooks? Yes. I think we are supporting Ukraine because of what it could be, not what it is, and in response to an aggressive Russia. Apart from hyperbole, I don't think the Ukrainian leaders are Nazis, but it does seem Putin is inclined to hyperbole because he actually believes it to one extent or another.

Is it wise to war with your largest trading partner?
No. But what do you do when that trading partner begins to forcefully take over your country's territory? The fact is that Russia reacted militarily way too early to even give dialogue and diplomacy a chance to accomplish it's objectives and alleviate its concerns. This is what ultimately led everyone into this situation. There is no reason to believe that the Ukrainian coup in and of itself couldn't have been diplomatically maneuvered by Moscow to achieve similar objectives without becoming an outcast and drawing the west into conflict.

According to recent reports, Merkle and Hollande are extremely pessimistic about peace and are alluding to an inevitable escalation in hostilities that could quite possibly turn into all out war instead of relatively static conflict. What is going on right now and in the coming weeks is very important, and should be given the media coverage it deserves. To say that nuclear war or an incursion into NATO states is imminent or even more likely than not is a bit reckless. However, a total dismissal of the possibilities over time is equally reckless. At the moment we are a bit closer to midnight and serious confrontation, but we must not forget that the hands on the clock are adjustable.

Should we arm Ukraine directly? No. Should we 'find a way' for 'certain arms and munitions' to get into the hands of the Ukrainians? Yes. Should we bolster Europe's defenses? Yes. Should we station large numbers of troops and equipment in the baltics? No. Close to the baltics? Yes. Should the President publicly brag about how big and bad he is by crushing Russia's economy? No, reckless. Should we continue with sanctions and other regime pressure instruments? Yes.
 
But it is a problem created by the EU and being handled by the EU. I really do not think the US should do, what is obviously required. If the EU wants to let Russia gut their Treaty partner and show the Russians that they will not protect European countries it will be catastrophic for Europe. But not immediately. It will take 5 or 6 years, before the next grab comes up. Alternatively Europe will bow to Russian hegemony, which is a very real possibility.

I would like to remind those whom even consider bowing down to Russian hegemony that it will not be pretty. Speaking of our countries historical experience, events occurring in Crimea, Chechnya and so on, people will be brutally bullied away from their wealth in a classical Slavic medieval way.
 
Why? The article linked is by an investigative reporter, not a quote from a politician, not a release from the Pentagon, not an opinion from a war hawk, not a stenographic moment from a talking head, not from the desks of the perception management distributors, and is likely exact facts of the Ukrainian situation.

Nah, the article holds an extreme partisan position:

Instead, Official Washington seems possessed by a self-righteous goofiness that could be the prelude to the end of life on this planet.

Pretty ill premised forecast.

I am all in for helping the Ukrainian citizens. You don't help anyone with war. Kiev took the war to Donbass. I honestly believe Russia wants to help, but will not allow NATO a few hundred miles from Moscow, and neither would I. Kiev seems to be all crooks and liars. The
average citizen is the biggest loser if war continues and the Kiev regime continues. This war is about business and that is why you read about Hunter Biden and business deals. This isn't about helping Ukrainians. Draw a mental parralel as you recall the USA helping those Iraqis and Libyans and Syrians, and Hondurans, and Vietnamese.

Ukrainians want to be liberated from Russian bulliness. If it bothered Russians to have NATO on their doorsteps then they should have treated their partners in better fairness.

Now though Ukraine has made a choice and we are above that stage. Ukraine is European and the EU should back Ukrainians be set free from Russian hegemony and bulliness. The US is welcomed to help Ukraine be liberated just like it helped other European (i.e., not Asian or South American) countries such as former countries of former Yugoslavia.
 
Are there Neo Nazis in the Kiev camp? Yes. Are there despotic communists in the Rebel/Russian camp? Yes. Are they all crooks? Yes. I think we are supporting Ukraine because of what it could be, not what it is, and in response to an aggressive Russia.

Exactly,

With help comes greater degrees of influence. A lot better an option than leaving it all up to the crooks whom may win on their own (I still think Ukrainians are pretty tough fighters) and then would not care to hear about other countries opinions and may in turn become a Nazi stronghold, a vacuum potentially waiting to be influenced from a 4th or 5th world party (including future Islamic countries like ISIS since Hitler liked Islamic extremists).
 
This war is about Central Banks and economies and natural resources and strategic demographics. The US has to control all the World's banks or face an eventual crash. We've got our toadies, the EU and UK, by the short hairs, so they have to go along. Japan is trapped, so they go along. The US, UK, EU, and Japan represent about 60% of the World's capital and this is just above the balance point where their power will be diminished significantly (50%), We are attempting to crush Russia economically to minimize the Russian alliance with China and India and BRICS Nations. If the US fails, the PetroDollar is out the window, the USA will no longer have Reserve Currency status and that will require that our currency be backed by something other than faith. For example, my ol' buddy, Justin O. Peewillie, is part-time employed as a greeter at WallyWorld, and owes various banks and loan companies and payment committments to account for all of his income for the next 10 years. Justin wants to print his own money to pay his debts, like the US did in 2007-8, because he is strong in the faith, don't ya' know? He has explained that if all his overseas creditors hold his fiat currency as surplus capital and it doesn't come back to the US, then all is well. If it does come back, Justin loses whatever he owns. Pretty simple, just like the Federal Reserve and US Treasury. I've suggested to Justin that he only deal with overseas customers for his money, because it doesn't generate a lot of faith locally. Justin told me he is considering printing a little extra to accommodate the demands of Quantitive Easing and also lower the value of the currency after he gets it shifted overseas. A modicum of manipulation may be required at this point, but Justin assures me that current markets have nothing to do with supply and demand but controlled naked shorts and Exponential quantity positions. There is big profit to be made with currency mythical values and he used Switzerland as an example. And to top it all off, it's not illegal or SNB and BIS would be indicted, don't ya' know. It's a dream world when you can write checks that will never be cashed, like petrodollars, eh?

Yep. Some actually believe that theory of the all powerful monster and its vast conspiracy.
Personally I see humans. And they cannot swing that type of thing.
 
I disagree with you somewhat. The Baltic states are a different matter because they are in NATO. As such we are committed to their security and I think that Putin understands that. If he does not and tries that, then the gloves are off. Over and above that, Russia can hardly afford what they are doing in Ukraine what to speak of launching a war in the Baltics or over here in the western hemisphere. I think that although Putin is a concern, you have greatly over exaggerated the potential threat.

I know there are people that believed that. There are fewer now and the resistance to stationing major Nato units in the Eastern European member countries is crumbling. That is what would have been required in Ukraine before the "Trade" Treaty with the EU was forced through. But without forces in those countries ie the way it was, Russia could repeat its game.
 
Back
Top Bottom