|
Media Studies – (‘Russian Invasion’ Scam)
Material for media studies:
The Hill @thehill – 9:32 PM · Feb 3, 2022
Reporter: “It’s an action that you say they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that. […] This is like – crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now.”
Must-watch exchange between @APDiploWriter Matt Lee and @StateDeptSpox.
video
———
> The U.S. intelligence briefing included specific reference to next Wednesday, February 16, as a start date for the ground invasion, three officials — based in Washington, London and Ukraine — told POLITICO. <
…
> The prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 16 was always overhyped. The time frame to really keep an eye on is what happens shortly after Feb. 20. <
———
> After decades of getting schooled in information warfare by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, the United States is trying to beat the master at his own game.
…
Biden administration officials said they had a narrower and more realistic goal: They want to make it more difficult for Mr. Putin to justify an invasion with lies, undercutting his standing on the global stage and building support for a tougher response.
Intelligence agencies, prodded by the White House, have declassified information, which in turn has been briefed to Congress, shared with reporters and discussed by Pentagon and State Department spokesmen.
…
For all the disclosures, the Biden administration has provided no evidence of the disinformation plots they say they have uncovered. <
…
Julia Ioffe @juliaioffe – 13:56 UTC · Feb 16, 2022
With all the alarm about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, it's important to keep in mind that the alarm itself, and using the U.S. media to keep the alarm ringing, is part of the Biden admin's strategy to keep pressure on the Kremlin. It IS the strategy.
Putin on the Brink… of What, Exactly?
———
Melinda Haring @melindaharing – 19:25 UTC · Feb 11, 2022
Putin has big weekend plans in Ukraine: 1) he's going to cut power and heat, knock out Ukrainian navy and air force, kill general staff and hit them with cyber attack; 2) then install pro-Russian president and 3) resort to full-scale military invasion if Ukraine doesn't give in
…
Melinda Haring @melindaharing – 13:04 UTC · Feb 14, 2022
Emotions running high and I let them get the better of me. I still expect action this week but Putin may drag this out. We still don't know. Bottom line is that I recognize that I need to be more judicious.
…
Melinda Haring @melindaharing – 12:40 UTC · Feb 15, 2022
We’ve been so focused on Russian troops and tanks that we missed Moscow’s strategy: strangle Ukraine’s economy and sap the resolve of its people.
The West Is Falling for Putin’s Real Play in Ukraine
———
> [Halyna] Yanchenko is a Deputy Head in Ukraine’s “Servant of the People” political faction, which has a majority in parliament and was founded by current president Volodymyr Zelensky.
…
“In our opinion, all these crazy things going on in American media and world media — all these appeals to diplomats and business to pack their bags and leave Ukraine immediately — it really harms Ukrainian economy,” she said. “I’m stopping myself from starting using curse words, because all these panics are costing us a lot of money. A lot of money to actually keep, you know, business and services circulating in Ukraine. Because that’s the worst that can happen now.”
…
According to Yanchenko, the risk of Russian invasion is “minimal… it’s not that much.” Whereas the economy cratering thanks in large part to US agitation is observably happening, right now. “So if we are talking about military situation,” she said, “we are talking only about possible risks — it might happen or it might not happen — but if we are talking about economic consequences, the worst thing already happened. And now we have to react to this and do something in order to keep the state alive.”
———
> I’m watching it now… the soviet nationwide anthem simply began enjoying on the fucking sq.’s audio system. I am not even kidding. … <
Reuters Live – View of Maidan square in Kyiv
———
> After days marked by flickers of hope that the conflict might be resolved peacefully, a senior American official, who refused to be quoted by name, told reporters that far from winding down its deployment, Moscow had added more than 7,000 combatants. Western allies expressed similar doubts about the Russian claims.
…
To some extent, the battle between the West and Moscow over Ukraine has been one of signaling. To keep international pressure on Russia high, the United States has repeatedly declared that an invasion was near, even imminent. Moscow, in turn, has repeatedly accused Washington of exaggerating the threat.
…
Maria V. Zakharova, the Foreign Ministry’s often caustic spokeswoman, said she would appreciate U.S. and British news outlets publishing the schedules for Russia’s “invasions” in the coming year, because “I’d like to plan my vacation.” <
———
> West's policies, as I am on record, are not conducted for the sake of development of own nations or of international relations. They are conducted for PR purposes only, as a means to an end of retaining political power for a variety of reasons ranging from desire to have it for the sake of it or for comfortable retirement paid in all kinds of cash and favors in exchange for proper political plays. <
———
Each of the above chapters deserves its own write-up. But alas – so many lies, so little time …
Russian FM site inaccessible, hacked or truly overwhelmed by the fact that the reply to the US reply has been published? In any case Cassad has it in Russian.
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7446905.html
Posted by: Paco | Feb 17 2022 17:27 utc | 82
*********************************************
Yandex translation:
*********************************************
Response to response
Main
colonelcassad
February 17, 17:46
The Russian Foreign Ministry has published a written response to the American written response to Russian claims on security guarantees in Europe.
Response to response
On February 17, 2022, US Ambassador John Sullivan, invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry, was given the following reaction to the previously received American response on the Russian draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees.
TASS publishes the full text of the statement.
General characteristics
We state that the American side did not give a constructive response to the basic elements of the draft security guarantees agreement prepared by the Russian side with the United States. We are talking about the rejection of further expansion of NATO, the withdrawal of the “Bucharest formula” that “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO”, and the refusal to create military bases on the territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and are not members of the alliance, including the use of their infrastructure for conducting any military activity, as well as the return of military capabilities, including shock, and NATO infrastructure to the state of 1997, when the Founding Act of Russia — NATO was signed. These provisions are of fundamental importance for the Russian Federation.
The package nature of Russian proposals has been ignored, from which “convenient” topics have been deliberately chosen, which, in turn, are “twisted” in the direction of creating advantages for the United States and its allies. This approach, as well as the accompanying rhetoric of American officials, reinforces reasonable doubts that Washington is really committed to correcting the situation in the field of Euro-security.
The growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly at the Russian borders is alarming, while our “red lines” and fundamental security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored. Ultimatum demands to withdraw troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions, are unacceptable and undermine the prospects of reaching real agreements.
In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of ensuring our security by the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures.
In Ukraine
There is no “Russian invasion” of Ukraine, as the United States and its allies have been officially declaring since last autumn, and there are no plans, therefore, statements about “Russia’s responsibility for escalation” cannot be regarded otherwise than as an attempt to exert pressure and devalue Russia’s proposals for security guarantees.
The mention in this context of Russian obligations under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 has nothing to do with the internal Ukrainian conflict and does not apply to the circumstances resulting from the actions of internal factors there. The loss of territorial integrity by the Ukrainian state is the result of the processes that took place inside it.
The accusations of Russia contained in the American response that it “occupied Crimea” also do not stand up to any criticism. In 2014, a coup took place in Kiev, the initiators of which, with the support of the United States and their allies, set a course for the creation of a nationalist state that infringes on the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population, as well as other “non-titular” ethnic groups. It is not surprising that in such a situation, Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia. The decision of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to return to the Russian Federation was made by free expression of will in the exercise of the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. Force or threat of force was not used. The question of Crimea’s ownership is closed.
If Ukraine is accepted into NATO, there will be a real threat that the regime in Kiev will try to “return” Crimea by force, dragging the United States and its allies, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, into a direct armed conflict with Russia with all the ensuing consequences.
The thesis repeated in the US response that Russia allegedly “ignited the conflict in the Donbas” is untenable. Its reasons are purely intra-Ukrainian in nature. The settlement is possible only through the implementation of the Minsk agreements and a set of measures, the priority and responsibility for the implementation of which are clearly spelled out and unanimously confirmed by UN Security Council resolution 2202, including the United States, France and the United Kingdom. In paragraph 2 of this resolution, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk are named as parties. None of these documents mention Russia’s responsibility for the conflict in the Donbas. Russia, together with the OSCE, plays the role of mediator in the main negotiating format – the contact group – and together with Berlin and Paris – in the “Normandy format”, which formulates recommendations to the parties to the conflict and monitors their implementation.
To de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, it is fundamentally important to take the following steps. This is forcing Kiev to implement a set of measures, stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine, withdrawing all Western advisers and instructors from there, the refusal of NATO countries from any joint exercises with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the withdrawal of all foreign weapons previously supplied to Kiev outside Ukrainian territory.
In this regard, we draw attention to the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a press conference following talks in Moscow with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 7, 2022, stressed that we are open to dialogue and urge “to think about stable security conditions for everyone, equal for all participants in international life.”
Force configuration
We note that in their response to the Russian proposals, the United States insists that progress in improving the situation in the field of European security “can only be achieved in terms of de-escalation in relation to Russia’s threatening actions directed against Ukraine,” which, as we understand, implies the requirement to withdraw Russian troops from the borders of Ukraine. At the same time, the United States is ready to talk only about “mutual obligations … to refrain from deploying permanent-based forces with combat missions on the territory of Ukraine” and “consider discussing the problem of conventional armed forces.” For the rest, the American side remains silent about our proposals contained in paragraphs 2 of Article 4 and paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the draft bilateral treaty and declares that “the current configuration of the US and NATO forces is limited, proportional and fully complies with the obligations under the NATO-Russia Founding Act.”
We proceed from the fact that the deployment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on its territory does not and cannot affect the fundamental interests of the United States. We would like to remind you that there are no our forces on the territory of Ukraine.
At the same time, the United States and its allies were advancing their military infrastructure to the east, deploying contingents in the territories of new members. They circumvented the limitations of the CFE Treaty and interpreted very loosely the provisions of the Russia—NATO Founding Act on the rejection of “additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces.” The situation that has developed as a result of these actions is unacceptable. We insist on the withdrawal of all US armed forces and weapons stationed in CEE, SEE and the Baltic States. We are convinced that there are quite enough national potentials in these zones. We are ready to discuss this topic on the basis of art. 4 and 5 of the Russian draft agreement.
The principle of indivisibility of security
We did not see any evidence in the US response that the American side is fully committed to observing the immutable principle of indivisibility of security. The general statements about the consideration of this postulate by the American side are in direct contradiction with Washington’s unwillingness to abandon a counterproductive and destabilizing course to create advantages for itself and its allies at the expense of Russia’s security interests. This is precisely what is happening as a result of the unrestrained implementation by the North Atlantic Alliance, with the leading role of the United States, of the policy of unlimited geostrategic and military development of the post-Soviet space, including the territory of Ukraine, which is particularly sensitive for us. All this is happening directly on the Russian borders. Thus, our “red lines” and fundamental security interests are ignored, and Russia’s inalienable right to ensure them is rejected. For us, of course, this is unacceptable.
Additionally, we remind you that this principle is enshrined in the preamble of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 2011, the extension of which for five years without any exceptions was agreed by the parties in February last year, as well as in a number of OSCE and Russia—NATO basic documents adopted at the highest level: in the preamble of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, the Founding Act of Russia — NATO of 1997, the Istanbul Charter for European Security of the OSCE of 1999, the Rome Declaration of Russia-NATO of 2002 and the Astana Declaration of the OSCE Summit of 2010.
We note that the response received mentions Washington’s commitment to the concept of indivisibility of security. But in the text, it boils down to the right of states “to freely choose or change ways to ensure their security, including union treaties.” This freedom is not absolute and is only half of the well-known formula fixed in the Charter of European Security. Its second part requires that, when exercising this right, not “… strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of other States.” We cannot consider the letter received from NATO dated February 10, 2022 as a response to the message sent by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on January 28, 2022 to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on this issue. We asked for an answer in a national capacity.
Posted by: Greg Galloway | Feb 17 2022 21:03 utc | 133
|
