President Putin with the elected representatives, turned the economy of Russia around, to give Russia back to the people of Russia. The middle class appeared by 2004 and continues to increase to this day. Over 30% of the Russian population is now middle class while the west sinks into poverty. Unemployment is very low so Russia is being careful on immigration. Very little of what he and the elected Duma and Senate have done is told to the western audience. While the west continues to spend trillions on war Russia built a rapid rail system between Moscow and St. Petersburg. A nine hour trip now takes under three environmentally friendly hours.
Neil Clark – Op-Ed
Just when you thought Fake News had nowhere else to go, up pops BuzzFeed to take it to a whole new level. The site’s publication of an unverified, error-filled dossier on Donald Trump and his alleged links to Russia, marks a new journalistic low.
If The Donald continues to call for a new ‘partnership’ with Russia, then, we will be told, it’s all because he’s being blackmailed by Putin. There can be no other explanation. But, in fact, it’s the Western intelligence services and their political/media allies who are doing the blackmailing. The message to any prospective leader of the US or Britain is clear – if you don’t toe the Establishment line on Russia, we will do everything we can to destroy you. The pressure on Donald Trump to ‘conform’ on Russia is tremendous. It’s this attempt to bully foreign policy ‘dissidents’ into taking the Deep State line, and the complicit role of the media in promoting/publicizing fake news which furthers the agenda, which is the big story.
When it was #PizzaGate everyone laughed, but when it was Golden Showers it was a case of: “True or not true – this is an important story which needs airing!”
And that’s because of the geo-politics.
To update the A. J. P. Taylor quote about Labour and the Zinoviev letter: ‘Trump was denounced as the accomplice of the Russians; alternatively as their dupe.’ It’s the same for any leading public figure who wants a change in Western foreign policy.
To understand why the prospect of better relations with Russia terrifies the Deep State, all we have to do – as I noted here – is to follow the money trail.
As the great Upton Sinclair might have put it, it’s hard to get someone to understand there is no Russian threat when their (very high) salary depends on there being a ‘Russian threat’ – and promoting that ‘Russian threat’ very aggressively.
Read Scott Ritter – Exposing the Man Behind the Curtain
Image by Jim Unger giving the World a Perspective
“High confidence in a judgment does not imply the assessment is a fact or certainty” Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) stated: “Such judgments might be wrong.”
Was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces an intentional hit by the Pentagon to block military cooperation with Russia?
The Russians had a powerful incentive to ensure that the ceasefire would hold, especially around Aleppo.
In the new ceasefire agreement, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had negotiated an unusually detailed set of requirements for both sides to withdraw their forces from the Castello Road, the main artery for entry into Aleppo from the north.
It was understood that the “demilitarization” north of Aleppo was aimed at allowing humanitarian aid to reach the city and was, therefore, the central political focus of the ceasefire.
That crucial shift in US diplomatic position was a direct result of the aggressive opposition of the Pentagon to Obama’s intention to enter into military cooperation with Russia in Syria.
The Pentagon was motivated by an overriding interest in heading off such high-profile US-Russian cooperation at a time when it is pushing for much greater US military efforts to counter what it portrays as Russian aggression in a new Cold War.
US President Barack Obama made his eighth – and final – address to the United Nations General Assembly this week. What a relief, not to be subjected to any more florid speeches filled with vacuous, psychopathic lies.
In his address, Obama referred to a host of wars, flash-points and security problems. He mentioned Ukraine, Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock, tensions in the South China Sea, North Korea’s nuclear weapons, alleged Iranian nuclear ambitions, Middle East instability, racism, sectarianism, fundamentalism and ISIL terrorism.
In front of the world, Obama had the audacity to blame Russia of attempting to recover lost glory through force by purportedly threatening Ukraine, the Baltic region and Europe.
“After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad,” claimed Obama, in a breathtaking denial of how the US and European Union actually destabilized the country in 2013-2014, leading to a CIA-backed coup d’état and an ongoing war in eastern Ukraine.
In virtually every conflict cited by Obama it can be factually counter-posed that US intervention has played a critical role in unleashing hostilities and tensions with a death toll exceeding millions of victims. Yet all he would admit, with astounding understatement, was that the US has “made our share of mistakes” over the past 25 years since the end of the Cold War.
US spends Trillions on War rather than Infrastructure, Environment and Health. The world remembers and ask why: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria and 65 intrusions on other nations?
We don’t have space or patience to rebut every one of the falsehoods spouted by Obama at the UN. But let’s take a few.
Syria’s tragic civil war is not due to a sectarian regime abusing its power, as he makes out. The nearly six-year war is the result of US-led efforts to destabilize a pluralist Arab democracy for regime change towards a puppet willing to serve American hegemonic “core interests” in the region. This criminal US objective is in violation of international law, including Washington’s covert support for proxy terrorist insurgents.
Obama deplores fundamentalism and the rise of medieval ISIL terrorism without a hint of shame that seven decades of US strategic collusion with the medieval fundamentalist Saudi dictatorship has spawned ISIL and other Islamist terror networks.
(Finian Cunningham worked for 20 years as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV)
Read entire article: Source: Handle with care: American psycho system a ‘co-worker of God’ — RT Op-Edge
According to statements made at last weekend’s summit in Warsaw, NATO regards Russia as a bigger threat than ISIS. Of course, that’s ludicrous but when you scratch beneath the surface, the use of these falsehoods makes perverted sense.
Gleb is a Russian student in Dublin. Recently, at the request of a mutual friend, I’ve been helping him with his university thesis which focuses on the reasons Ireland is one of the few Western European countries that has resisted NATO membership. A distinction that most Irish people are extremely proud of.
As an Irishman myself, I’ve always been baffled by why so many members of the British and continental European elite see NATO as a good thing. After all, where’s the glory in being dictated to by an external power whose interests are often at marked variance with your own?
Like right this moment, when it’s plainly obvious the biggest threat to Western Europe is Islamic fundamentalism and the fallout from a destabilized Middle East. But the US remains somewhat impervious to these issues, which it largely helped to ferment, and instead continues to be, bizarrely, focused on Russia.
Let’s be clear here. You don’t require submarines or nuclear weapons to engage ISIL, but you would in a putative conflict with Russia. The fact that such a collision would probably, due to the atomic arsenals involved, mean the end of human civilization, is irrelevant to NATO because it doesn’t actually want a war with Russia.
Instead it desires to use Moscow as a convenient bogeyman in order to maintain US defense spending, which grew 9 percent annually from 2000-2009 during the war on terror.
My Note: (How did it happen that our rights and liberties were so easy taken from us? Declare a war on a word that has no army, no headquarters, a scattered unseen organization and call it Terrorism. Our home and all our possessions can be taken away by a banking system backed by corrupt governments, IMF and WTO. Phone calls are monitored and emails read without our knowledge. Presidents can be awarded the highest office by a Court rather than the people. We are told to take the lowest paying degrading job while the Corporations pollute our air, water and land daily. – Dennis Cambly)
Gore Vidal explains the War on Terror
The simple fact is that six of the top eight defense contractors in the world are American. Together, they directly employ close to 750,000 people and that’s in addition to millions of other service and supply roles that depend on their patronage. Any reduction in munitions outlay would jeopardize a lot of those jobs, creating unemployment black spots in many US towns and cities. And those would be primarily in blue collar areas which have already been hollowed out by decades of outsourcing, many of which happen to be situated in electoral swing states.
Every politician who would advocate this would be self-immolating their career.
Read the entire article, written by Bryan MacDonald, an Irish journalist based in Russia.
The BBC have made a new film of the classic 1930 children’s novel Swallows and Amazons, and you’ll probably not be surprised to know who the new baddies are.
Arthur Ransome’s book, set in England’s beautiful Lake District region, was about the outdoor adventures of two families of children. The 2016 adaptation has introduced two new characters to the story. Guess what? They’re Russian spies!
What makes the tampering with the original text all the more objectionable, is Arthur Ransome himself was a Russophile, and an admirer of a certain Vladimir Lenin. Swallows and Amazonsand Shady Soviet Spies? Red Arthur, who shared a flat with Radek and who married Trotsky’s secretary, must be turning in his grave.
The makeover of Swallows and Amazons is only the latest example of Russian baddies being wheeled out in new film and television productions. Since 2013, when, purely coincidentally, Russia became official enemy number one for the western Establishment by blocking plans for regime change in Syria, we’ve had a glut of productions featuring diabolical, sinister Russkies.
At the same time in book publishing, a spate of anti-Russia/anti-Putin titles have appeared and been aggressively promoted (and done very well when it comes to winning literary prizes). Anyone who arrived back in Britain from a few years abroad could be forgiven for thinking that we’re being prepared for a major war. It’s hard to escape from all this Russophobia. It hits us when we switch on the TV to watch mainstream channels, go to the cinema or pop down to our local bookshop, where we’re likely to see books with subtle titles like 2017 War with Russia: An Urgent Warning from Senior Military Command, by General Sir Richard Shirreff, prominently displayed.
On the telly, it’s not just the Russian spies in Swallows and Amazons we’ve got to look forward. There’s a new production of Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent. In the original 1907 novel it is only implied that agent provocateur Adolf Verloc is working for the Russian government. But the new production – it seems – will leave us in no doubt as to who’s behind the devilish plot to bring terror to London.
It’s not only in Britain where dramas with Russians as the baddies are in vogue. It seems to be the norm elsewhere in NATO-land. Last autumn, Okkupert (Occupied), a drama depicting a future Russian invasion of Norway, premiered on Norway’s TV 2 channel. The budget for the series was 90m kr ($11m) making it the most expensive production in Norwegian television history. It goes without saying that the UK is one of the countries which Okkupert has sold to. The Baltic States have also bought it. That will do a lot to ease tensions with Russia, won’t it?
The Russians, quite justifiably, feel offended by this very cold piece of cold war propaganda. The Russian Ambassador to Norway noted that it was the 70th anniversary of the Red Army’s victory over the Nazis that involved the liberation of Northern Norway from the Germans. In fact just a year earlier King Harald V had paid tribute to the Red Army, saying:
“Norway has never forgotten, and will never forget, the contribution our Russian neighbor gave to our freedom. Many hundred Soviet soldiers fell in the battles in Eastern Finnmark in the autumn of 1944. Of the nearly 100.000 soviet prisoners of war that were sent to Norway, more than 13.000 died, and are resting in Norwegian soil.”
Resource: Pew Research
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership.
Follow Neil on Twitter
Read full article Source: Oh look, there’s another Russian baddie! — RT Op-Edge
The Official Reasons
We all know the governments of the West, lead by the US and the UK, have turned against Russia. There are many reasons offered by our media: Russia tried to stop the Ukraine from joining the EU. Russia helped the pro-Russian rebels shoot down MH-17. Russia invaded the Crimea illegally. Thousands of Russian troops and tanks are fighting in the Ukraine. Some of us think these claims are war propaganda for the citizens of the West used to justify sanctions against Russia and increasing military tensions.
The Geo-political Reasons
Less widely discussed but much more important are the Geo-political reasons which look at the areas of conflict between the economic interests of the US and those of Russia and China. At the moment the EU is heavily dependent on energy from Russia. The US would like to stop this. The conflict in the Ukraine is an important part of the process of economically separating the EU from Russia. But there is also a wider agenda. China and Russia lead the BRICS group of countries consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS countries want to develop a world wide economic system that does not depend the US dollar. They want to be independent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. China has also suggested to Europe that they join together with Russia and themselves in what they call the New Silk Road, stretching across the whole of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Shanghai. Needless to say there is no immediate place for the US in this plan, so this gives another reason to cut the economic ties between Russia and the EU.
The Secret Reason – The War that Didn’t Happen
While these factors are all important, there is another factor which is never discussed in the Western media. The trigger for the sudden hostility against Russia and Putin can be found in almost unreported events which took place late in August and early September 2013. What happen in that crucial period is that a planned NATO surprise attack on Syria was stopped by Russia. This was probably the first time since WWII that a military attack planned by the West was confronted by sufficient force to require its cancellation. The people in the West will not be told because their belligerent, tough-talking leaders “blinked”. They backed down and decided to change their plans. The new plan: Undermine the Ukraine and seize Crimea for NATO. This obviously didn’t work either, and the mess they created is still with us.
The Planned US-French Attack on Syria
Early in the morning of Saturday, August 31, 2013, an American official called the office of President Hollande telling him to expect a call from Obama later in the day. “Assuming that the evening phone call would announce the commencement of U.S. air strikes (against Syria), Hollande ordered his officers to quickly finalize their own attack plans. Rafale fighters were loaded with Scalp cruise missiles, their pilots told to launch the 250-mile-range munitions while over the Mediterranean.”(1) In other words, at this point in time the French pilots and the US forces were only waiting for the final command from President Obama to begin their attack. However, later that same day, at 6:15 pm, Obama called the French President to tell him that the strike scheduled for 3:00 am, September 1, would not take place as planned. He would need to consult Congress.(2)
Why Did the US Change Plans?
It is difficult for us to know all of the manoeuvres which took place behind the scenes during August and September, 2013, but the final outcome is clear. After years of increasing tensions and threats, the US and its allies decided not to launch a direct attack on Syria as planned. Given the rhetoric and military deployment directed against Syria seemed to follow the script used for Iraq and Libya, there has been little discussion in the West about why the US and its friends suddenly changed their plans. Now with hindsight we can see that this failed direct attack led to an increased indirect attack and the rise of what is know known as ISIS.
Two of the obvious reasons
I can see for this sudden change are not the sort of things the political leaders of the West want to discuss. One is the fact that these wars are very unpopular. As a result of countless lies and failures revealed about the pointless and savage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, it seems that some of the politicians are listening to their citizens. How else can you explain the unexpected decision of the British Parliament on Thursday, 29 August, to vote against the UK taking part in any strikes on Syria?
The other reason is the extent of the military build-up by Syria, Russia and even China.(9) The Russians and Chinese have not only blocked the US in the Security Council. They “voted” with their military hardware. They are not happy about what the US planned for Syria and made it quite clear that they would use force to stop them. When was the last time the Chinese ever sent warships to the Mediterranean? Russia and China are clearly not happy with the way the US decides to invade one country after another.
In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.
Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union – has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.
This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.
In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.
What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.
Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat.” According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea.”
What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation.”
What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.
The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” – a Dan Rather equivalent, say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.
The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear-armed bombers.
This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.
In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes – such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits – that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.
In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our skepticism.
Read More Source: A world war has begun. Break the silence – John Pilger — RT Op-Edge
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discusses the role of Russia in international relations, stressing the need for cooperation between Moscow and the West.
History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France. Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.
Numerous scientific investigations bear witness to the high cultural and spiritual level of Rus of those days, a level that was frequently higher than in western European states. Many prominent Western thinkers recognized that Rus was part of the European context. At the same time, Russian people possessed a cultural matrix of their own and an original type of spirituality and never merged with the West. It is instructive to recall in this connection what was for my people a tragic and in many respects critical epoch of the Mongolian invasion. The Russian poet and writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The barbarians did not dare to leave an enslaved Rus in their rear and returned to their Eastern steppes. Christian enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and dying Russia.” We also know an alternative view offered by prominent historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov, who believed that the Mongolian invasion had prompted the emergence of a new Russian ethnos (ethnic group) and that the Great Steppe had given us an additional impetus for development.
However that may be, it is clear that the said period was extremely important for the assertion of the Russian State’s independent role in Eurasia. Let us recall in this connection the policy pursued by Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit to Golden Horde rulers, who were tolerant of Christianity, in order to uphold the Russians’ right to have a faith of their own and to decide their fate, despite the European West’s attempts to put Russian lands under full control and to deprive Russians of their identity. I am confident that this wise and forward-looking policy is in our genes.
It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that everyone was happy about this state of affairs. Repeated attempts to return this country into the pre-Peter times were made over subsequent centuries but failed. In the middle 18th century Russia played a key role in a pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’ War. At that time, Russian troops made a triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital of Prussia under Frederick II who had a reputation for invincibility. Prussia was saved from an inevitable rout only because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden death and was succeeded by Peter III who sympathized with Frederick II. This turn in German history is still referred to as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and influence grew substantially under Catherine the Great when, as then Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it, “Not a single cannon in Europe could be fired without our consent.”
During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country. I’m referring, in part, to the Napoleonic wars upon the completion of which Russia rescued the system of international relations that was based on the balance of forces and mutual consideration for national interests and ruled out the total dominance of one state in Europe. We remember that Emperor Alexander I took an active role in the drafting of decisions of the 1815 Vienna Congress that ensured the development of Europe without serious armed clashes during the subsequent 40 years.
The First World War claimed lives and caused the suffering of countless millions of people and led to the collapse of four empires. In this connection, it is appropriate to recall yet another anniversary, which will be marked next year – the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Today we are faced with the need to develop a balanced and objective assessment of those events, especially in an environment where, particularly in the West, many are willing to use this date to mount even more information attacks on Russia, and to portray the 1917 Revolution as a barbaric coup that dragged down all of European history. Even worse, they want to equate the Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially blame it for starting WWII.
Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Civil War were a terrible tragedy for our nation. However, all other revolutions were tragic as well. This does not prevent our French colleagues from extolling their upheaval, which, in addition to the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, also involved the use of the guillotine, and rivers of blood.
The underlying problem of Western policy is that it disregarded the global context. The current globalized world is based on an unprecedented interconnection between countries, and so it’s impossible to develop relations between Russia and the EU as if they remained at the core of global politics as during the Cold War. We must take note of the powerful processes that are underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.
Rapid changes in all areas of international life is the primary sign of the current stage. Indicatively, they often take an unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of “the end of history” developed by well-known US sociologist and political researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was popular in the 1990s, has become clearly inconsistent today. According to this concept, rapid globalization signals the ultimate victory of the liberal capitalist model, whereas all other models should adapt to it under the guidance of the wise Western teachers.
The west habitually accuses Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged desire to destroy the established international system, as if it was us who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia that ignored international law by invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN Security Council resolutions by overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by force in Libya in 2011. There are many examples.
This discourse about “revisionism” does not hold water. It is based on the simple and even primitive logic that only Washington can set the tune in world affairs. In line with this logic, the principle once formulated by George Orwell and moved to the international level, sounds like the following: all states are equal but some states are more equal than others. However, today international relations are too sophisticated a mechanism to be controlled from one center. This is obvious given the results of US interference: There is virtually no state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the brink of disintegration, and so on and so forth.
A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges. Such an interaction should include all the colors of the modern world, and be based on its cultural and civilisational diversity, as well as reflect the interests of the international community’s key components.
Our approaches are shared by most countries of the world, including our Chinese partners, other BRICS and SCO nations, and our friends in the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words, we can say that Russia is fighting not against someone, but for the resolution of all the issues on an equal and mutually respectful basis, which alone can serve as a reliable foundation for a long-term improvement of international relations.
Our most important task is to join our efforts against not some far-fetched, but very real challenges, among which the terrorist aggression is the most pressing one. The extremists from ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for the first time to establish control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. They are trying to extend their influence to other countries and regions, and are committing acts of terrorism around the world. Underestimating this risk is nothing short of criminal shortsightedness.
Source and complete article: Lavrov: Russia open to widest possible cooperation with West — RT Official word
When western media makes up stories about Russia, it’s no big deal. When Russian media get things wrong, it’s “hybrid war.”
Last week, British state-controlled TV created hysteria with a documentary about a putative Russian invasion of Latvia. As usual, while the Latvians were miffed, nobody west of Kaliningrad had any difficulty with it. They were more concerned with the segment that showed the UK being nuked.
Thus, we again discover that the Western establishment believes it has a monopoly on truth. That only its narrative is worthy and anything that challenges the consensus is disinformation.
If Evelyn Waugh were around today he wouldn’t need to invent William Boot. Too many living, breathing, equivalents have passed through Ukraine and Turkey (the base for Syria coverage) in the past two years. By the same token, George Orwell’s Winston Smith seems tame compared to agitprop practitioners of today. A certain cabal in the pro-NATO realm has decided that cynicism is somehow unique to Russia. Bewilderingly, their exclusive focus on Russia invalidates much of this enterprise. They are blind to it in their own back yards.
For those of us who follow media, the last week has been truly instructive. An independent French journalist, Paul Moreira, decided to challenge the pro-Maidan group-think in the popular press. As it happens, not one fact in his documentary was noticeably erroneous.
The show was nicely timed as the British government is currently trying to force a £100 billion ($144 billion) upgrade of their Trident nuclear deterrent through parliament. The opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, contends that the money might be better spent elsewhere. This is hardly surprising, given that the UK is forecast to run a £69.5 billion budget deficit in the year to April 2016. In addition, over one million Brits currently rely on free food-banks to survive.
Entire article here: ‘Hybrid Warfare’: Anti-Russia propaganda finds a new buzzword — RT Op-Edge