And, from everything I've heard on podcasts, Oliver stone was the target of
incredible attacks on the Colbert (is that how it's spelled?) show the other
night. He was treated with incredible disrespect. This is what the
establishment, including all of the so called liberals did to Sstephen F Cohen
starting 3 years ago when he pointed out the truth about Ukraine and what the
US was doing and what the US behavior toward Russia had been since Clinton took
office. I am hearing a number of academics and investigative rporters making
the same points as Cohen has been making, on podcasts. These folks have written
books and articles about the subject. But the truth is irrelevant to our
political establishment and the mainstream media. There's a split on the issue
on the staff of the Nation magazine. Cohen is married to the editor and they
both tend to take a similar view. That's not true of the majority of the other
writers. People for whom I've had real respect in the past, are sounding crazy.
I do understand that a lot of people want to get Trump out of office for
varying reasons, probably the most important being that he's insane and he
demeans the Presidency and the country by his behavior. But the end doesn't
justify the means. It never does. There are things that he is doing regarding
his business interests which are illegal, and his inability to carry out the
duties of the office, should be reason enough. But somehow the real reasons
don't appear to be politically viable to the powers that be. So they're
building up this Russian conspiracy theory to justify getting rid of Trump.
I've never understood why Liberals hate Putin so much. I do understand what
he's done in Russia is anti- Democratic. But really, what has he done to the
US? What has he done that is half as bad as what the US has done to the rest of
the world? Why is his treatment of the people whom he deems to be undesirable
any worse than our treatment of our underclass? Is the percentage of Russians
who are imprisoned as large as the percentage of Americans who are imprisoned?
Are his reasons worse for imprisoning people than our reasons which are that
people are people of color, have been found with tiny amounts of drugs, are
poor people who can't pay fines , or were in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Why did we choose him as the worst scoundrel while we are allies with Saudi
Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, etc., all countries whose crimes against people are
worse? It has to do with tradition and with oil. But it's insane.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Don't the U.S. Mainstream Media Report
Vladimir Putin's Take on the Ukraine Crisis?
For me, there were no surprises in the clips of Vladimir Putin's interview with
Oliver Stone.
He is proof that the USA Rulers must paint anyone they disagree with as a Two
Headed Fire Breathing Demon. Vladimir Putin actually appeared human and not
only human, but intelligent, too.
Our Ruling Class just can't trust themselves to explain their positions in
terms that win the minds and hearts of the American People. So they do the
traditional standby, they turn those they oppose, into inhuman monsters.
The scary thing is that Oliver Stone received threats to his well being, simply
because he interviewed Vladimir Putin. We think we're not being conditioned?
The FOX so called News is redefining Truth and Fact. And anyone who says
differently is declared UnAmerican, and fair game for the Stone Throwers.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/15/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oliver Stone has a documentary on Showtime, 4 hours of a filmed
interview with Vladimir Putin. This article is about one of the
interviews. Democracy Now interviewes Oliver Stone for the hour yesterday,
about his interviews.
Miriam
Truthdig
Why Don't the U.S. Mainstream Media Report Vladimir Putin's Take on
the Ukraine Crisis?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_doesnt_mainstream_media_report
_putin
s_take_on_ukraine_20170614/
Posted on Jun 14, 2017
By Robert Parry / Consortiumnews
(https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-asses
sment/
)
Oliver Stone, right, interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin for
"The Putin Interview," a four-part series on Showtime. (Showtime
(http://www.sho.com/the-putin-interviews) )
A prime example of how today's mainstream media paradigm works in the U.S.
is the case of Ukraine, where Americans have been shielded from
evidence that the 2014 ouster of democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych was a U.S.-supported coup d'etat spearheaded by
violent neo-Nazi extremists.
As The New York Times has instructed us
(https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-u
kraine
/) , there was no coup in Ukraine; there was no U.S. interference; and
there weren't even that many neo-Nazis. And, the ensuing civil
conflict wasn't a resistance among Yanukovych's supporters to his
illegal ouster; no, it was "Russian aggression" or a "Russian
invasion."
If you deviate from this groupthink - if you point out how U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland talked about the U.S.
spending $5 billion on Ukraine
(https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/)
; if you mention her pre-coup intercepted phone call
(https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/11/nato-reaffirms-its-bogus-russia
-narra
tive/) with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who the new
leaders would be and how "to glue" or how "to "midwife this thing"; if
you note how Nuland and Sen. John McCain urged on the violent
anti-Yanukovych protesters
(https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/08/seeing-no-neo-nazi-militias-in-
ukrain
e/) ; if you recognize that snipers firing from far-right-controlled
buildings
(https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/30/ukraines-inconvenient-neo-nazis
/) killed both police and protesters to provoke the climactic ouster
of Yanukovych; and if you think all that indeed looks like a coup -
you obviously are the victim of "Russian propaganda and
disinformation."
But most Americans probably haven't heard any of that evidence
revealing a coup, thanks to the mainstream U.S. media, which has
essentially banned those deviant facts from the public discourse. If
they are mentioned at all, they are lumped together with "fake news"
amid the reassuring hope that soon there will be algorithms to purge
such troublesome information
(https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/02/nyt-cheers-the-rise-of-censorsh
ip-alg
orithms/) from the Internet.
So, if Americans tune in to Part Three of Oliver Stone's "The Putin
Interviews" on "Showtime" and hear Russian President Vladimir Putin
explain his perspective on the Ukraine crisis, they may become alarmed
that Putin, leader of a nuclear-armed country, is delusional.
A Nuanced Perspective
In reality, Putin's account of the Ukraine crisis is fairly nuanced.
He notes that there was genuine popular anger over the corruption that
came to dominate Ukraine after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 and
the selling off of the nation's assets to well-connected "oligarchs."
Putin recognizes that many Ukrainians felt that an association with
the European Union could help solve their problems. But that created a
problem for Russia because of the absence of tariffs between Russia
and Ukraine and concerns about the future of bilateral trade that is
especially important to Ukraine, which stood to lose some $160
billion.
When Yanukovych decided to postpone the E.U. agreement so he could
iron out that problem, protests erupted, Putin said. But - from that
point on - Putin's narrative deviates from what the U.S. government
and mainstream media tell the American people.
"Our European and American partners managed to mount this horse of
discontent of the people and instead of trying to find out what was
really happening, they decided to support the coup d'etat," Putin said.
Contrary to the U.S. claims blaming Yanukovych for the violence in the
Maidan protests, Putin said, "Yanukovych didn't give an order to use
weapons against civilians. And incidentally, our Western partners,
including the United States, asked us to influence him so that he did
not give any orders to use weapons. They told us, 'We ask you to
prevent President Yanukovych from using the armed forces.' And they
promised . they were going to do everything for the opposition to
clear the squares and the administrative buildings.
"We said, 'Very well, that is a good proposal. We are going to work on it.'
And, as you know, President Yanukovych didn't resort to using the
Armed Forces. And President Yanukovych said that he couldn't imagine
any other way of dealing with this situation. He couldn't sign an
order on the use of weapons."
Though Putin did not specifically finger blame for the sniper fire on Feb.
20, 2014, which killed more than a dozen police and scores of
protesters, he said, "Well, who could have placed these snipers?
Interested parties, parties who wanted to escalate the situation. . We
have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the
western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a number of other
places."
After the bloodshed of Feb. 20, Yanukovych and opposition leaders on Feb.
21
signed an accord, brokered and guaranteed by three European
governments, for early elections and, in the meantime, a reduction of
Yanukovych's powers.
Ignoring a Political Deal
But the opposition, led by neo-Nazi and other extreme nationalist
street fighters, brushed aside the agreement and escalated their
seizing of government buildings, although The New York Times and other
U.S. accounts would have the American people believe that Yanukovych
simply abandoned his office.
"That's the version used to justify the support granted to the coup,"
Putin said. "Once the President left for Kharkov, the second largest
city in the country to attend an internal political event, armed men
seized the Presidential Residence. Imagine something like that in the
U.S., if the White House was seized, what would you call that? A coup
d'etat? Or say that they just came to sweep the floors?
"The Prosecutor General was shot at, one of the security officers was
wounded. And the motorcade of President Yanukovych himself was shot
at. So it's nothing short of an armed seizure of power. Moreover, one
day afterwards he used our support and relocated to Crimea (where he
stayed for more than a week) thinking that there was still a chance
that those who put their signatures on the (Feb. 21) agreement with
the opposition would make an attempt to settle this conflict by
civilized democratic legal means. But that never happened and it
became clear that if he were taken he would be killed.
"Everything can be perverted and distorted, millions of people can be
deceived, if you use the monopoly of the media. But in the end, I
believe that for an impartial spectator it is clear what has happened
- a coup d'etat had taken place."
Putin noted how the new regime in Kiev immediately sought to limit use
of the Russian language and allowed extreme nationalist elements to
move against eastern provinces known as the Donbass where ethnic
Russians were the vast majority of the population.
Putin continued, "First, there were attempts at arresting them [ethnic
Russians] using the police, but the police defected to their side
quite quickly. Then the central authorities started to use Special
Forces and in the night, people were snatched and taken to prison.
Certainly, people in Donbass, after that, they took up arms.
"But once this happened, hostilities started so instead of engaging in
dialogue with people in the southeast part of Ukraine, they [Ukraine
government officials] used Special Forces, and started to use weapons
directly - tanks and even military aircraft. There were strikes from
multiple rocket launchers against residential neighborhoods. . We
repeatedly appealed to this new leadership asking them to abstain from
extreme actions."
However, the civil conflict only grew worse with thousands of people
killed in some of the worst violence that Europe has seen since World
War II. In the U.S. mainstream media, however, the crisis was blamed
entirely on Putin and Russia.
The Crimea Case
As for the so-called "annexation" of Crimea, a peninsula in the Black
Sea that was historically part of Russia and that even after the
Soviet break-up hosted a major Russian naval base at Sevastopol,
Putin's account also deviated sharply from what Americans have been
told.
When Stone asked about the "annexation," Putin responded: "We were not
the ones to annex Crimea. The citizens of Crimea decided to join
Russia. The legitimate parliament of Crimea, which was elected based
on the Ukrainian legislation, announced a referendum. The Parliament,
by an overwhelming majority, voted to join Russia.
"The coup d'etat in Ukraine was accompanied by a surge in violence.
And there was even the threat that violence would be perpetrated by
nationalists against Crimea, against those who consider themselves to
be Russian and who think Russian is their mother language. And people
got concerned - they were preoccupied by their own safety.
"According to the corresponding international agreement [with
Ukraine], we had a right to have 20,000 people at our military base in
the Crimea. We had to facilitate the work of the Parliament of Crimea,
the representative government body, in order for this Parliament to be
able to assemble and affect actions in accordance with the law.
"The people had to feel they were safe. Yes, we created conditions for
people to go to polling stations, but we did not engage in any hostilities.
More than 90 percent of the Crimean population turned out, they voted,
and once the ballot was cast, the [Crimean] Parliament, based on the
outcome of the referendum, addressed the Russian parliament, asking to
incorporate it into the Russian Federation.
"Moreover, Ukraine lost the territory, not due to Russia's position,
but due to the position assumed by those who are living in Crimea.
These people didn't want to live under the banner of nationalists."
Stone challenged some of Putin's concerns that Ukraine might have
turned the Russian naval base over to NATO. "Even if NATO made an
agreement with Ukraine, I still don't see a threat to Russia with the
new weaponry," Stone said.
Putin responded: "I see a threat. The threat consists in the fact that
once NATO comes to this or that country, the political leadership of
that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence
the decisions NATO takes, including the decisions related to
stationing the military infrastructure. Even very sensitive weapons
systems can be deployed. I'm also talking about the anti-ballistic
missile systems."
Putin also argued that the U.S. government exploited the situation in
Ukraine to spread hostile propaganda against Russia, saying:
"Through initiating the crisis in Ukraine, they've [American
officials] managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia,
viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor. But very
soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat
whatsoever emanating from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or
to Eastern Europe, or to Western Europe."
A Dangerous Standoff
Putin shed light, too, on a little-noticed confrontation involving a U.S.
destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, that steamed through the Black Sea
toward Crimea in the middle of the crisis but turned back when Russian
aircraft buzzed the ship and Russia activated its shoreline defense systems.
Stone compared the situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis when a Soviet
ship turned back rather than challenge the blockade that President
John Kennedy had established around the island. But Putin didn't see
the confrontation with the U.S. destroyers as grave as that.
Putin said, "Once Crimea became a full-fledged part of the Russian
Federation, our attitude toward this territory changed dramatically.
If we see a threat to our territory, and Crimea is now part of Russia,
just as any other country, we will have to protect our territory by
all means at our disposal. .
"I wouldn't draw an analogy with the Cuban Missile Crisis, because
back then the world was on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse. Luckily,
the situation didn't go so far this time. Even though we did indeed
deploy our most sophisticated, our cutting-edge systems for the
coastal defense," known as the Bastion.
"Certainly - against such missiles as the ones we've deployed in
Crimea - such a ship as the Destroyer Donald Cook is simply
defenseless. . Our Commanders always have the authorization to use any
means for the defense of the Russian Federation. . Yes , certainly it
would have been very bad. What was the Donald Cook doing so close to
our land? Who was trying to provoke whom? And we are determined to
protect our territory. .
"Once the destroyer was located and detected, they [the U.S. crew] saw
that there was a threat, and the ship itself saw that it was the
target of the missile systems. I don't know who the Captain was, but
he showed much restraint, I think he is a responsible man, and a
courageous officer to boot. I think it was the right decision that he
took. He decided not to escalate the situation. He decided not to
proceed. It doesn't at all mean that it would have been attacked by
our missiles, but we had to show them that our coast was protected by the
missile systems.
"The Captain sees right away that his ship has become the target of
missile systems - he has special equipment to detect such kinds of
situations. .
But
indeed we were brought to the brink, so to speak. . Yes, certainly. We
had to respond somehow. Yes, we were open to positive dialogue. We did
everything to achieve a political settlement. But they [U.S.
officials] had to give their support to this unconstitutional seizure
of power. I still wonder why they had to do that?"
It also remains a question why the U.S. mainstream media feels that it
must protect the American people from alternative views even as the
risks of nuclear confrontation escalate.
Regarding other issues discussed by Putin, click here
(https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/13/how-vladimir-putin-sees-the-wor
ld/)
.
For more on Stone's style in interviewing Putin, click here
(https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/12/oliver-stone-reveals-a-vulnerab
le-put
in/) .
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can
buy his latest book, "America's Stolen Narrative," either in print
here
(https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY
=1037)
or as an e-book (from Amazon
(https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Stolen-Narrative-Washington-ebook/dp/
B009RX
XOIG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350755575&sr=8-1&keywords=americas+stolen
+narra
tive) and barnesandnoble.com
(http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/americas-stolen-narrative-robert-parr
y/1113
515681?ean=2940015517552) ).
London's Grenfell Tower Is a 'Political Tragedy,' No Matter What the
Nay-Sayers Say
Matt Taibbi Bids 'Goodbye and Good Riddance' to the Centrism That's
Been Duping Voters for Decades
White House for Sale: Emoluments, Corruption and Donald Trump
Colin Kaepernick Is Being Blackballed by Billionaire NFL Owners.
Here's Why.
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
gumgum-verify
ExelateData
