As tensions began to rise over Ukraine, US media produced a stream of articles attempting to explain the situation with headlines like “Ukraine Explained” (New York Times, 12/8/21) and “What You Need to Know About Tensions Between Ukraine and Russia” (Washington Post, 11/26/21). Sidebars would have notes that tried to provide context for the current headlines. But to truly understand this crisis, you would need to know much more than what these articles offered.
These “explainer” pieces are emblematic of Ukraine coverage in the rest of corporate media, which almost universally gave a pro-Western view of US/Russia relations and the history behind them. Media echoed the point of view of those who believe the US should have an active role in Ukrainian politics and enforce its perspective through military threats.
The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by threatening to invade Ukraine, and the Biden administration needed to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for US/Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.
Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the US should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia (FAIR.org, 1/15/22).
The Washington Post asked: “Why is there tension between Russia and Ukraine?” Its answer:
In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. A month later, war erupted between Russian-allied separatists and Ukraine’s military in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas. The United Nations human rights office estimates that more than 13,000 people have been killed.
But that account is highly misleading, because it leaves out the crucial role the US has played in escalating tensions in the region. In nearly every case we looked at, the reports omitted the US’s extensive role in the 2014 coup that preceded Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Focusing on the latter part only serves to manufacture consent for US intervention abroad.
The West Wants Investor-Friendly Policies in Ukraine
The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the US strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations.
A key tool for this has been the International Monetary Fund, which leverages aid loans to push governments to adopt policies friendly to foreign investors. The IMF is funded by and represents Western financial capital and governments and has been at the forefront of efforts to reshape economies around the world for decades, often with disastrous results. The civil war in Yemen and the coup in Bolivia both followed a rejection of IMF terms.
In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.
In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere. By then, the nationalist protests were heating up that would go on to topple his government.
After the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF. The IMF’s goals still include “reducing the role of the state and vested interests in the economy” in order to attract more foreign capital.
The IMF is one of the many global institutions whose role in maintaining global inequities often goes unreported and unnoticed by the general public. The US economic quest to open global markets to capital is a key driver of international affairs, but if the press chooses to ignore it, the public debate is incomplete and shallow.
The US Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Elected President
During the tug of war between the US and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution—also known as the Maidan Coup—named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.
As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the US was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the US government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…[members of] the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with US goals.
The NED is a key organization in the network of American soft power that pours $170 million a year into organizations dedicated to defending or installing US-friendly regimes. The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius (9/22/91) once wrote that the organization functions by “doing in public what the CIA used to do in private.” The NED targets governments who oppose US military or economic policy, stirring up anti-government opposition.
The NED board of directors includes Elliott Abrams, whose sordid record runs from the Iran/Contra affair in the ’80s to the Trump administration’s effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government. In 2013, NED president Carl Gershman wrote a piece in the Washington Post (9/26/13) that described Ukraine as the “biggest prize” in the East/West rivalry. After the Obama administration, Nuland joined the NED board of directors before returning to the State Department in the Biden administration as undersecretary of state for political affairs.
One of the many recipients of NED money for projects in Ukraine was the International Republican Institute. The IRI, once chaired by Sen. John McCain, has long had a hand in US regime change operations. During the protests that eventually brought down the government, McCain and other US officials personally flew into Ukraine to encourage protesters.
US Officials Were Caught Picking the New Government
On February 6, 2014, as the anti-government protests were intensifying, an anonymous party (assumed by many to be Russia) leaked a call between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two officials discussed which opposition officials would staff a prospective new government, agreeing that Arseniy Yatsenyuk—Nuland referred to him by the nickname “Yats”—should be in charge. It was also agreed that someone “high profile” be brought in to push things along. That someone was Joe Biden.
Weeks later, on February 22, after a massacre by suspicious snipers brought tensions to a head, the Ukrainian parliament quickly removed Yanukovych from office in a constitutionally questionable maneuver. Yanukovych then fled the country, calling the overthrow a coup. On February 27, Yatsenyuk became prime minister.
At the time the call leaked, media were quick to pounce on Nuland’s saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment dominated the headlines (Daily Beast, 2/6/14; BuzzFeed, 2/6/14; Atlantic, 2/6/14; Guardian, 2/6/14), while the evidence of US regime change efforts was downplayed. With the headline “Russia Claims US Is Meddling Over Ukraine,” the New York Times (2/6/14) put the facts of US involvement in the mouth of an official enemy, blunting their impact on the audience. The Times (2/6/14) later described the two officials as benignly “talking about the political crisis in Kiev” and sharing “their views of how it might be resolved.”
The Washington Post (2/6/14) acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of US involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship.
Washington Used Nazis to Help Overthrow the Government
The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists. Their leaders made up the vanguard of the anti-Yanukovych protests, and even spoke at opposition events in the Maidan alongside US regime change advocates like McCain and Nuland.
After the violent coup, these groups were later incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces—the same armed forces that the US has now given $2.5 billion. Though Congress technically restricted money from flowing to the Azov Battalion in 2018, trainers on the ground say there’s no mechanism to actually enforce the provision. Since the coup, the Ukrainian nationalist forces have been responsible for a wide variety of atrocities in the counterinsurgency war.
Far-right influence has increased across Ukraine as a result of Washington’s actions. A recent UN Human Rights council has noted that “fundamental freedoms in Ukraine have been squeezed” since 2014, further weakening the argument that the US is involved in the country on behalf of liberal values.
Among American neo-Nazis, there’s even a movement aimed at encouraging right-wing extremists to join the Battalion in order to “gain actual combat experience” in preparation for a potential civil war in the US.
In a recent UN vote on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism,” the US and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote no.
As FAIR (1/15/22) has reported, between December 6, 2021, and January 6, 2022, the New York Times ran 228 articles that refer to Ukraine, but none of them reference the pro-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s politics or government. The same can be said of the Washington Post’s 201 articles on the topic.
There’s a Lot More to the Crimean Annexation
The facts above give more context to Russian actions following the coup, and ought to counter the caricature of a Russian Empire bent on expansion. From Russia’s point of view, a longtime adversary had successfully overthrown a neighboring government using violent far-right extremists.
The Crimean peninsula, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954, is home to one of two Russian naval bases with access to the Black and Mediterranean seas, one of history’s most important maritime theaters. A Crimea controlled by a US-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access.
The peninsula—82% of whose households speak Russian, and only 2% mainly Ukrainian—held a plebiscite in March 2014 on whether or not they should join Russia, or remain under the new Ukrainian government. The Pro-Russia camp won with 95% of the vote. The UN General Assembly, led by the US, voted to ignore the referendum results on the grounds that it was contrary to Ukraine’s constitution. This same constitution had been set aside to oust President Yanukovych a month earlier.
All of this is dropped from Western coverage.
The US Wants to Expand NATO
In addition to integrating Ukraine into the US-dominated economic sphere, Western planners also want to integrate Ukraine militarily. For years, the US has sought the expansion of NATO, an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance. NATO was originally billed as a counterforce to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, but after the demise of the Soviet Union, the US promised the new Russia that it would not expand NATO east of Germany. Despite this agreement, the US continued building out its military alliance,growing closer and closer to Russia’s borders and ignoring Russia’s objections.
This history is sometimes admitted but usually downplayed in corporate media. In an interview with the Washington Post (12/1/21), professor Mary Sarotte, author of Not One Inch: America, Russia and the Making of Post–Cold War Stalemate, recounted that after the Soviet collapse, “Washington realized that it could not only win big, but win bigger. Not one inch of territory needed to be off-limits to full NATO membership.” The US “all-or-nothing approach to expansionism…maximized conflict with Moscow,” she noted. Unfortunately, one interview does little to cut through the drumbeat of pro-NATO talking points.
In 2008, NATO members pledged to extend membership to Ukraine. The removal of the pro-Russian government in 2014 was a giant leap towards the pledge becoming a reality. Recently, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg announced that the alliance stands by plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance.
Bret Stephens in the New York Times (1/11/21) maintained that if Ukraine wasn’t allowed to join the organization, it would “break the spine of NATO” and “end the Western alliance as we have known it since the Atlantic Charter.”
The US Wouldn’t Tolerate What Russia Is Expected to Accept
Much has been written about the Russian buildup on the Ukraine border. Reports of the buildup have been intensified by US intelligence officials’ warnings of an attack. Media often echo the claim of an inevitable invasion. The Washington Post editorial board (1/24/22) wrote that “Putin can—and will—use any measures the United States and its NATO allies either take or refrain from taking as a pretext for aggression.”
But Putin has been clear about a path to de-escalation. His main demand has been for direct negotiations to end the expansion of the hostile military alliance to his borders. He announced, “We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” and that “the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin asked, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”
In corporate media coverage, no one bothers to ask this important question. Instead, the assumption is that Putin ought to tolerate a hostile military alliance directly across its border. The US, it seems, is the only country allowed to have a sphere of influence.
The New York Times (1/26/22) asked: “Can the West Stop Russia From Invading Ukraine?” but shrugs at the US dismissal of Putin’s terms as “nonstarters.” The Washington Post (12/10/21) reported: “Some analysts have expressed worry that the Russian leader is making demands that he knows Washington will reject, possibly as a pretext for military action once he is spurned.” The Post quoted one analyst, “I don’t see us giving them anything that would suffice relative to their demands, and what troubles me is they know that.”
Audiences have also been assured that Putin’s reaction to Western expansionism is actually a prelude to more aggressive actions. “Ukraine Is Only One Small Part of Putin’s Plans,” warned the New York Times (1/7/22). The Times (1/26/22) later described Putin’s Ukraine policy as an attempt at “restoring what he views as Russia’s rightful place among the world’s great powers,” rather than an attempt to avoid having the US military directly on its border. USA Today (1/18/22) warned readers that “Putin ‘Won’t Stop’ with Ukraine.”
But taking this view is diplomatic malpractice. Anatol Lieven (Responsible Statecraft, 1/3/22), an analyst at the Quincy Institute, wrote that US acquiescence to a neutral Ukraine would be a “golden bridge” that, in addition to reducing US/Russia tensions, could enable a political solution to Ukraine’s civil war. This restraint-oriented policy is considered fringe thinking in the Washington foreign policy establishment.
The Memory Hole
All of this missing context allows hawks to promote disastrous escalation of tensions. The Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) published an opinion piece trying to convince readers there was a “Strategic Advantage to Risking War In Ukraine.” The piece, by John Deni of the US Army War College, summarized the familiar hawkish talking points, and claimed that a neutral Ukraine is “anathema to Western values of national self-determination and sovereignty.”
In a modern rendition of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Afghan Trap, Deni asserted that war in Ukraine could actually serve US interests by weakening Russia: Such a war, however disastrous, would “forge an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe,” refocusing NATO against the main enemy, result in “economic sanctions that would further weaken Russia’s economy” and “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity.” Thus escalating tensions is a win/win for Washington.
Few of the recent wave of Ukraine pieces recount the crucial history given above. Including the truth about US foreign policy goals in the post–Cold War era makes the current picture look a lot less one-sided. Imagine for one second how the US would behave if Putin began trying to add a US neighbor to a hostile military alliance after helping to overthrow its government.
The economic imperative for opening foreign markets, the NATO drive to push up against Russia, US support for the 2014 coup and the direct hand in shaping the new government all need to be pushed down the memory hole if the official line is to have any credibility. Absent all of that, it is easy to accept the fiction that Ukraine is a battleground between a “rules-based order” and Russian autocracy.
Indeed, the Washington Post editorial board (12/8/21) recently compared negotiating with Putin to appeasing Hitler at Munich. It called on Biden to “resist Putin’s trumped-up demands on Ukraine,” “lest he destabilize all of Europe to autocratic Russia’s advantage.” This wasn’t the only time the paper has made the Munich analogy; the Post (12/10/21) ran a piece by former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen headlined “On Ukraine, Biden Is Channeling His Inner Neville Chamberlain.”
In the New York Times (12/10/21), Trump NSC aide Alexander Vindman told readers “How the United States Can Break Putin’s Hold on Ukraine,” and urged the Biden administration to send active US troops to the country. A “free and sovereign Ukraine,” he said, is vital in “advancing US interests against those of Russia and China.” Times reporter Michael Crowley (12/16/21) also framed the Ukraine standoff as another “Test of US Credibility Abroad,” after that credibility was supposedly damaged after ending the war in Afghanistan.
In a New York Times major feature (1/16/21) on Ukraine, the US role in bringing tensions to this point was completely omitted, in favor of exclusively blaming “Russian Belligerence.”
As a result of this coverage, the interventionist mentality has trickled down to the public. One poll found that, should Russia actually invade Ukraine, 50% of Americans support embroiling the US in yet another quagmire, up from just 30% in 2014. Biden, however, has said that no US troops will be sent to Ukraine. Instead, the US and EU have threatened sanctions or support for a rebel insurgency should Russia invade.
The past few weeks have seen several failed talks between the US and Russians, as the US refuses to alter its plans for Ukraine. The US Congress is rushing a “lethal aid” package to send more weapons to the troubled border. Perhaps if the public were better informed, there would be more domestic pressure on Biden to end the brinkmanship and seek a genuine solution to the problem.
WonderingWoman
Let’s see—-well Biden and Blinken ( neither of whom ever went to war) but seem to want to start one.
In 1997 Bill Clinton sent NATO right up to Russia’s border. Wow aggression, you think? Today America wants Ukraine to battle Russia. Are they serious, well Pelosi wants to send big money to Ukraine. I guess she forgot that Americans ( lots of them ) need help. I wonder if Mitch would agree that a huge amount of Americans lack jobs, decent wages, and probably HOPE—that nebulous thing.
American America—-you also want to ,change the freely elected President of Venezuela –Madero with some clown named Guaido. Wow, lack of democracy in action. Putin does not appear to want war, and I wonder about Ukraine—–maybe we can just have Biden and Putin step into a ring and whoever wins owns the world. Yes, we are living in a deluded world of weird journalists from the NY Times and the Washington Bezos . “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, with a whimper.”
or, ” BYE BYE Miss America Pie…”
Alan Ditmore
It is imperative to ACT LOCALLY, and war is one of the hardest issues on which to do this beyond getting local governments to make rhetorical statements and electing peace candidates to town councils, thus positioning them to later run for higher office; but In the Iraq war, Asheville city hall did materially contribute by passing a policy to hold open jobs for city workers called up by the national guard. Such voluntary, material war contributions by local governments need to be opposed! Also, local police should not give back surplus weapons that can then be given to Ukrainian Nazis.
BRCitizen
Thanks for the rare serious article on this subject, which is so lacking in the US media.
Doug Latimer
Isn’t another factor that Biden, having essentially capitulated to protofascism domestically, sees a hotted up Cold War on the foreign front as vital to his prospects for another term, however much a figurehead he would be?
Jonathan Marshall
Good article. All of this information is readily available from past reporting by major media–yet is conveniently forgotten or ignored in most recent reporting, which consistently privileges the confrontational claims coming out of official Washington circles. Editors who expose past Pentagon and White House lies one day are all too credulous about their new claims. Witness the largely uncritical coverage of the UK intelligence report about Russian plans for a coup in Ukraine, which The Guardian demolished.
John Wheat Gibson
Thanks to Bryce Greene for clear analysis and rationality. Unfortunately, rationality is the last thing the corporate media will permit to the tv-watching masses, as the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the rest whip them into a frenzy for war equal to any street parade seen in Germany between 1917 and 1939. Nazis stick together–German, American, Israeli, Ukrainian, British–and the totally controlled corporate media provide the glue.
Randal Marlin
One additional fact is that he U.S. has long been busy interfering with Russian elections. There were advisors to help elect Yeltsin for a second and disastrous term for Russia. There was boasting about it in Time Magazine.
Just reproduce Time’s cover of July 15, 1996, if copyright permits. The big heading is “YANKS TO THE RESCUE.”
I don’t believe Putin intends to invade, but if Ukraine tries to win back territory in the East with the help of U.S. weaponry, I would imagine he would use a large enough force to stop that. John J. Mearsheimer’s lecture of 2014 gives a good account of the complexities, along with accurate predictions (so far).
José Díaz Balart
Hey Comrade, there is no such thing as fair elections with Putin running the show – wake up. You may not believe a Russian attack is about to occur but the reality of it is within the next couple of days Russia actually will ‘invade’ costing countless lives. Gotta love how this writer blames IMF terms, neo- nazism, racism, etc, etc and cherry picks obscure folks of zero note to back up this nonsense. Its war time for sure, thanks to Putin and guess what ? The IMF is not ordering 180,000 troops to attack – Putin is.
Alex
This is a very stupid comment. The neo nazis in both government and the Ukrainian military are not “obscure” folks of zero note. Putin is the one ordering troops to invade at the moment but both the US and NATO Allies have vested interests in provoking a war, ignoring that reality means you lack the critical thinking skills to Understand this conflict.
A Ukrainian Gal
Why are you regurgitating Putin’s propaganda at the very moment my comrades die of his shelling? What neo nazis are you babbling about? Our 2 right parties who one could remotely call “nazis” have no representative in Parliament, they sucked at promoting their ideas. They vanished in ’15, no one even talks about them, except Russians. You are either brainwashed or just thick naturally.
Maxim Golovin
Yeah… right… no nazis supported by government…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
Cal Lawson
There are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s government. Don’t blindly believe Putin’s propaganda.
Nat
Did any of you read the whole article? Because slow reading is a thing and it very helpful to quiet your thoughts to actually absorb information. Whether you agree or not, or wether your “heart aches for your compatriots” it’s ok. But at least read the article and try to understand it. Love Putin, hate him, it’s ok. Just educate yourself
Jon Lampart
They’re technically a minority sure, but they have an extensive influence as we fund/arm them to the tune of billions, 2.5 billion as noted by the article directly above.
One doesn’t have to “believe Putin’s propaganda”, these claims are grounded in material reality (the utility of marxism, aka dialectical/historical materialism), I would suggest people listen to Victoria Nuland’s leaked call to the Ukranian ambassador during the ’14 maidan uhh…”revolution” (I would say coup, backed by the US, as the sniper insanity/this phone call reveals, again, as pointed out by the article directly above you lol…), where she tells the ambassador “fuck the EU” (the only thing the corporate media focused on of course, to misdirect from the more revealing/damning elements of US domination, I would say) and “magically” picking the next Ukraine president. She says, “I don’t think Klitsch [Vitaly Klitschko] should go into government… I think Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy…“
The immediate issue was whether to accept a loan from the International Monetary Fund which was going to require a 40% increase in natural gas bills or to accept a loan from Russia with the inclusion of cheap oil and gas. The opposition wanted the Yanukovych government to take the EU/IMF loan. The opposition was comprised of different factions, undeniably including the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and Right Sector, but right there is where it all connects to financial empire of the US, the IMF/World Bank are essentially the financial tentacles of US corporate empire worldwide, the US dollar cemented in Bretton-Woods as the “global reserve currency” effectively making it the only sovereign currency in its hegemonic influence on the free-floating currencies pegged to it. For a historical juxtaposition here, albeit sort of a trope of its own in a broad sense, it’s in many ways much like the optimates of the late Roman empire but with guns and nukes, suppressing the populares movement of the Gracchi bros and later Caesar, famously of course by straight up murdering them all in the senate when the actual rubicon was crossed in debt cancellation and land redistribution (a senate from which our own gives explicit homage, uncoincidentally, senators entirely appointed by state legislatures in the original constitution, ok clearly I digress yet again lol).
As for the question of why and to cut through all the rhetorical nonsense of “freedom” or “sovereignty” which has virtually endless double-standards/hypocrisy (“freedom” for whom and for what purpose would be the relevant question), one has to ask the only political question that exists: cui bono? (Who benefits?) Maj.Gen. Smedley Butler explained this very explicitly after realizing his military ventures were used merely as a pawn to secure US domination over the global south (see: Monroe Doctrine, Operation Condor, “banana wars” he was involved in; also see the “business plot” which pushed him to realize all of this). A more intellectual understanding of such can be gleaned from reading Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism or the more updated version that puts it in a more contemporary context, Michael Hudson’s book Superimperialism. Point is, shocker, as usual, the military industrial complex benefits (military Keynesianism is clearly the only button we can legislatively push at this point). “Funny” how this black hole “defense” budget gets passed for our 1,000+ military bases globally which implicitly/explicitly enforce the Bretton-Woods financial system we leveraged post-WWII by being the only industrialized nation-state not bombed to hell, meanwhile we can’t even pass a modest domestic spending bill…”funny” that.
Nord Stream II is also a huge part of this, allowing Germany to obtain far cheaper natural gas from Russia would be a devastating blow to the stranglehold the US has over Europe (a stranglehold exemplified by that Nuland call). The corporate media justifies action toward this with a laughable refrain, it’s always like, “the European addiction to Russia’s energy”…it’s like…uh…what…we’re not even in Europe my god, what right do we have to decide that, especially as we conveniently ship them liquified natural gas at like 10x the price. Hell, what right do we have to do any of this is the real point, expanding NATO despite James Baker promising Gorbachev otherwise (you can read this transcript in the national security archives) in ’90 has been instigating/cultivating this for decades, hell there’s even a wikileaked cable revealing the state department explicitly and consciously knew this, entirely understood Putin’s security concerns. Pure hubris, not to mention even this reneging/seeking lucrative conflict is an American past time, simply note the indigenous tribes entirely wiped out, in the black hills for example, our treaty with the Sioux immediately reneged upon discovering gold there, after wiping them out and stabbing them in the back we can’t help but to do a gratuitous end-zone dance in the form of constructing a literal façade over this history in Mt.Rushmore (which sucks, btw, lol…absurdly underwhelming). Also, “fun” fact back to Ukraine, the name “Ukraine” literally means “edge” or “border”…gee, what could it possibly be the edge/border of…lol…also there’s the language thing, the continued strip-mining of public/state assets the austerity/oligarchical stranglehold run at our direction, the Banderas thing, the fact that such a “strategy of tension” is far from an isolated incident sadly (see: Operation Gladio in Italy, the “years of lead”, super insane), I don’t know, sorry for the meandering screed of consciousness book-length comment here, but yeah, there’s virtually endless reference points to triangulate the forest I’m trying to describe (as it reveals its trees for what they really are from such a macro-scale of geopolitics), what I would say is the baseline reality here underneath all the rhetoric/propaganda, that as usual, we are overwhelmingly to blame as catalyzing this conflict was very much intentional (oh hey, momentarily halting arms sales is afterall the grounds on which they impeached Trump the first time; not over emoluments, surely endless nakedly brazen corruption/conflict of interests, nah that’s all par for the course for all of these demons, but NATO and its perpetuation at quite literally all other non-monetary costs, that’s what’s reaaaally important to the demonic arcons in Washington).
*Cue “Are we the Baddies?” sketch*
Btw, plenty of actual books on the US empire/hegemony, some coming to mind: The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot, Killing Hope by William Blum, The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, War is a Racket by Smedley Butler as mentioned, Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky/Herman, or honestly just like look up “regime change” or any of the CIA’s operational history, their actions very clearly betray their functionality, which is as the SS 2.0 for transnational corporate/financial capital (my god, far from hyperbole, there’s a direct continuity to the literal nazi leadership in Operation Paperclip and the CIA/US protected ratlines to south america with such good folks like Klaus Barbie in France/Bolivia, Otto Skorzeny who is basically nazi james bond, et al.) Sadly/insanely/at no one’s request, I could go on forever here as surely no one will dispute at this point lol, this stuff is merely the tip of the imperialist iceberg, but uhh I’ll stfu now since this is absurdly long at this point aaaand yeah no one’s gonna read it lol…whatever, I’ve come too far/am bored/concerned sooo…c’est la vie…or something.
Socialism or [continued] barbarism.
Tim
You know who is against supporting Ukraine? Tucker Carlson. I couldn’t agree more. Biden has never been right. Ever.
boblite
Great article ! I’m not a fan of Putin, and I’m not a Russophile, but I have sensed extreme weirdness about this current beating of war drums, which this article explains in great detail.
I have two observations:
[1] A couple years ago I saw a TV interview of Robert M. Gates, former secretary of defense and highly respected Washington insider, in which he said that there had been an understanding between Russia and the U.S. that the Baltic countries would be within the Western sphere of influence, and that Ukraine would be in the Russian sphere. But, he added, times change….
[2] I saw somewhere an article reporting that Ukraine had given Russia a 99 year lease on the naval base and surrounding land in Sebastopol, and then unilaterally terminated that lease, and that this was a key reason for the Russian invasion in 2014.
ScottinDallas
there was no 2014 Russian invasion, you’re conflating the “annexation of Crimea” with an invasion. Again, the Carter Center oversaw the referendum where Crimeans voted 95% to join Russia, over Ukraine (a basket case, economically and politically) There was no invasion ever. But, in the US media, “annexation” is meant to sound like “invasion” but that’s all part of the lie
ScottIsAFool
Oh yeah, the ‘Crimean referendum’, where no, the Carter Center did NOT oversee it, Russian troops did, with clear ballot boxes and no obscuring of the ballots from people like the armed Russian troops guarding them. Amazing that. And especially amazing as the two choices were ‘join Russia, or be on your own [and collapse because you have no infrastructure, and no means to provide basic services until Russia just takes over anyway, so you’ll get a gun butt to the gut’
But hey, we all know now that Bryce’s ‘insightful’ statements have proven to be wrong. Not surprising as he left out a bunch of stuff to make his claim, like the whole bribery issues of a decade ago.
Cal Lawson
The “annexation of Crimea” was absolutely an invasion.
The Carter Center did *not* oversee the 2014 referendum. The *only* election monitors that were present for that sham referendum were Russian. The fact that you felt the need to lie about that says it all.
Bradley Grower
You know who is making generalizations based on the biased reporting of Fox News?
Cal Lawson
If Tucker Carlson is against something, it’s almost always a good idea to be for it.
Charles Rudolph
Be sure and add NPR to your list of corporate media.
ScottinDallas
indeed, NPR beat the drums for the Iraq War, they even played the weapon’s inspector’s rebuttal of Powell’s justifications for war with Iraq; the inspectors destroyed Powell’s every claim–I was following closely and knew the rebuttals before hand. Anyway this played LIVE on NPR “special coverage” so, I listened intently later for “All Things Considered” to report on the weapon’s inspectors, but no report was found, nothing even on Google searches. Nothing the next day on Morning Edition; it was flushed down the memory hole. They would later write a book with the same arguments but none of that ever caught traction. NPR is a CIA front
Myles Hoenig
Once again, NATO proves to be the greatest terrorist organization in the world.
ScottinDallas
you still omitted that the Crimean vote was overseen by the Carter Center and certified as a free and fair election (which Russia won by 95%. Otherwise, great article, long overdue; I hope this helps to correct the coverage somewhat, but we know the hawks are well positioned and this article will do nothing to interrupt the drum beat; sadly.
Cal Lawson
That was probably “omitted” because it’s a lie. The Carter Center did *not* oversee the referendum.
Mast Shpoon
An excellent & factual description of historical facts.
Dave Lindorff
Terrific report giving needed context to a potential powderkeg that is all the work of the US military/diplomatic/national security complex, with the full support of the US corporte media!
Every time I read something like this I find myself embarrassed to be identified as an American journalist. The professions is basically composed these days of a gaggle of shameless whores for capitalism and imperialism. How do these people live with themselves?
If they followed the basic rules of journalism that they would use in reporting on a city council hearing on a zoning change request or the next school budget, they would use skills and principles to give all sides of the story, honestly presented. But when it’s a foreign policy story, they just stenographically report the lies of the US side, presented as fact, let leaders like Biden refer to Putin as a “thug” without requiring any evidence, and assume US motives to be virtuous.
Ask any Vietnamese, Korean, Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Somalian, or most Filipino, Bolivian, Brazilian, Chilean, Honduran, Salvadoran, Nicaraguan or Venezuelan people what they think of the virtue of the US, and you’ll get another perspective.
Bradley Grower
I highly recommend Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. The pdf format is linked below:
http://www.lander.odessa.ua/doc/Overthrow%20Kinzer.pdf
responseTwo
Great reporting. Thank you for the info on the IMF.
kent biel
Very nice. Additional questions arise. What is the connection between the neo-nazi/ U.S. alignment and the Bannon/Trump courting of Putin’s neo-feudal KGB/gangster corporate capitalism that enlists the corrupt eastern-orthodox church . In the west it is Opus Dei. The apparent friction here is worth exploring since it involves a critical distinction between the technological globalism of the Democrats and the cultural authoritarianism of the Republicans .They are elitist in different ways. Think Medici and Savonarola. The market as the invisible hand of God and as the invisible hand of a technological elite. Between them is the problem of Narcissism and the cultural production of consciousness as an economic form in an era of AI. Neo-feudal capitalism is the organizing insight here.
Bradley Grower
It’s not a coincidence that Neo-liberalism dovetails so nicely with imperialist policies.
Sergei
Shocking journalism!
Just a long series of poorly disguised lies and half-truths, by a Putin Troll, in the pay of his Russian paymasters.
Don’t believe it readers, the Ukrainian people hate Putin and his cronies. Ukrainian’s hate Russian interference in their country and the Kremlin attempts at installing a Russian puppet in power in Kiev.
Long live Ukraine, and down with Putin and his blood thirsty dogs.
Timur
Couldn’t agree more. Most of information in the article is a lie. It sounds exactly like russian propaganda on russian TV. Biden is right imposing the sanctions on russian media. People of Russia have been brainwashed for years by russian TV channels. Now Putin is speading his propaganda to brainwash american people.
Nat
most of the info on this article actually takes info from western media, the half-lies are from western media . You might not be used to proper journalism, but this is what it looks like
Markoto
Article written from imperialist viewpoint. You are denouncing Americas involvment, but still keep your American viewpoint. Why?
In the article there is no mention on what Ukrainian people want ( for that matter, also Baltic people). Ukrainians themselves want to get away from Russian influence. They where in their sphere of influence for 23 years, and besides the cheap gas, they lived in poverty. The income of regular people was shockingly low, but they had an elite ultra rich. Infrastructure was crumbling, Army was robbed to the point that it was almost dead. Even if the IMF and EU represent globalist interests (which is true), people in Baltics and Poland saw such a huge improvement in their economic conditions, when leaving Russian (oligarch) sphere of influence, that in 2014 for a person from these countries, the poverty in Ukraine was shocking.
But your article doesn’t bother with the opionions of regular people – the only thing that matters are the reasoning of superpowers.
Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO, so they joined, in spite of Rusdia. Why should US and Russia decide who joins Nato? Why such imperialism from the writer?
Nat
You are confusing stating the facts with giving an opinion. The author is stating facts…
Mila teshaieva
Can’t believe that such an obvious piece of paid propaganda is getting published. Shame on those who wrote this and shame on those who find it’s possible to make it available to the public. Calling the revolution of people “coup” and people who made it “right wings”, well… I am an Ukrainian artist, living between Kyiv, Berlin and NYC, and I am speaking Russian, as most of my Ukrainian friends. I tell you more, at least 60% of Ukrainians speak Russian as mother tong but they either were part of ” nationalist coup” or support it. I can’t really comment every of nonsense written here, but again: shame on you, Bryce Green for such an obvious uneducated lie
Nat
Nah, thanks to him most people will understand what’s going on and remember the roots of a conflict that should not exist but has been mastered by the US propaganda. If you are able to read this with an open mind you will see that it is informative and means to enable you to do your own research. One would have to be a fool to not do our own research, so this is what journalism should do. State facts, with articles, tickle your curiosity and help you learn. It is not asking you to believe 100% anything, not to make you feel like you are put in a box, but to show you the box does not exist and the world is not black or white.
Pavel
This article is straight out of Russian/Soviet active-measures playbook, even playing the victim. I admit they are far better than the CIA, hold on comrades.
Philip Trent
An Excellent Article saying it as it is, as said below most of this information was in the main stream media but people forget. I am concerned that when I wished to comment , FB put a window appeared saying that the author had withdrawn the article. I would be interested to hear what has gone on.
Victor
Very good article, some remarks that you could add to the article :
1) George Soros and his organisations (Open society foundation, The International Renaissance Foundation) was deep involved in Ukraine revolution, after that the new president Petr Poroshenko awards George Soros with “Order of Freedom” https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/may-25-presidential-election/poroshenko-awards-george-soros-with-order-of-freedom-401941.html
And his organisations continue they influence on Ukraine media and after the revolution, by forming the opinion they want, for exemple the StopFake site that claiming to fight propaganda, but realy just do propaganda. In the begining when they was just created, they was have Soros “Renaissance Foundation” mark in the down of the site page, now dont have it, but you still can see the foundation mention on the donor list on the last second of this 2017 year site report video https://issuu.com/______________6/docs/stopfake-final-druk__1_ or here down in the “about us” page https://www.stopfake.org/en/about-us/ Then (around 2014) they was theirs only financiers and basically founders, now they writing that the site was founded by some students bla bla bla…
Interesting fact that facebook hired them to they decide what is “true” and whai is not https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/world/europe/ukraine-facebook-fake-news.html
2) Ukraine is rich agro country, wanted by big monopoly agro companies, like Monsanto, the GMO products maker, well knowing from they very human cancerogenic and soil ruining Roundup chemical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG0G0JvmIHM , which they use on their seeds.
After 2014 revolution, Monsanto make investments and get more land in Ukraine https://www.kyivpost.com/business/bayer-opens-monsanto-seed-plant-in-zhytomyr-region.html
George Soros is a major shareholder of Monsanto (or was, bcs company was selled to Bayern corporation some time ago).
3) Rothschild was adviser in a Bayer-Monsanto deal https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/rothschild-bayer-monsanto-biggest-acquiror-mandate-20160523
4) When in 2014 after West (US and EU) backed revolution, Poroshenko become new president of Ukraine, he past his business (big chocolate company) to management of Rothschilds https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/336156.html
5) After the revolution, Biden son become director in ukranian gas company https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003
6) After both revolutions in Ukraine, the new chief of Secret Services was become Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who previously was general consul of Ukraine Embassy in US.
A Ukrainian
What an embarrassment of an article. I am a Ukrainian who speaks primarily Russian. Do you know why? Because in the Soviet Union, our schools were taught entirely in Russian. Ukrainian language has been suppressed for years. The fact that a large portion of people in Crimea speak Russian says absolutely nothing about their allegiance. I speak Russian and yet I do not want my country invaded by Russia.
Nor do I care for ignorant hot takes such as this one, which discusses the desires of superpowers while not mentioning at all the desires of the people over whose country they are squabbling.
But I forgot: you are an American. Much like Russia, you don’t really care what Ukrainians want, nor do you care at all about the sovereignty of a nation that’s been fighting Russian invaders for generations. You only care about what you can get out of us.
Bradley Grower
As an American taxpayer, I’d prefer not to pay any more money in order to manipulate the Ukrainian government in any way. The FIVE BILLION DOLLARS referenced by Nuland under the Obama administration, was more than enough.
I don’t want anything from the Ukraine… except maybe some cheap Vodka.
Timur
As an american taxpayer I’d prefer to stop Russian aggression as soon as possible by any means. Otherwise you will wake up one day and everything you could afford would be some cheap vodka.
Paul
This seems to be a very one-sided article. You referred to the Revolution of Dignity (a.k.a. the Maidan Revolution) as a coup. You refer to the Crimean referendum of 2014 without noting that it was conducted by the occupying Russian forces. Someone in the comments above claimed that the Carter Center oversaw the referendum. I could find no evidence for such a claim.
Let’s not call Ukrainians fascists or Nazis. That’s really appalling, especially with the horrific loss of life suffered by Ukraine in WW2.
Russia wants to puppet the Ukrainian government, and Ukrainians won’t allow that. I respect them standing up for their freedom.
Dario Zuddu
Most unfortunately, the mainstream media’s disinformation on the background of the Russia-Nato stalemate is attaining unthinkable heights.
BBC News has recently posted an “analysis” (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589) going as far as claiming that there never really was a US promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward: “In President Putin’s eyes, the West promised back in 1990 that Nato would expand “not an inch to the east” but did so anyway.
That was before the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, so the promise made to then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev only referred to East Germany in the context of a reunified Germany.
Mr Gorbachev said later that “the topic of Nato expansion was never discussed” at the time”.
This is outrageous, since government records confirming conclusively the promise not to expand NATO eastward BEYOND East Germany have been around for a very long time now: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
The MSM has got us accustomed to abysmal coverage, but such dishonesty and lack of professionalism have it a new low.
phantonym
Accurately reporting that Gorbachev has said something (which he did indeed say in an interview) is outrageous and dishonest?
If you don’t believe what he says (and his recollection does appear to have changed so who knows) surely your problem is with him, not those quoting him?
In any case there is no such thing as an automatic implicit verbal contract in geopolitics, either there’s a treaty defining acceptable behavior or there isn’t.
Saying something and then doing the opposite is poor form and no way to build trust, that’s for sure, but no democratic leader is beholden to what a predecessor’s sec state’s idea of fair play may have been 30 years ago.
But when it comes to actual treaties, there’s the one where (among others) Russia was supposed to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for nukes.
It’s the hostage-taking bank robber lecturing a jaywalker about morals and the rule of law. In a jurisdiction where jaywalking isn’t even punishable.
Dario Zuddu
Your comment, imbued with US hyperpatriotism, did not even let you get my Gorbachev reference right – on top of everything else.
I didn’t question anywhere that Gorbachev said that in this or that interview, but that the BBC let the public believe that his recollection on that point was accurate, in face of well known and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
You desperately try to conceal the basic point: Western leaders and their puppet media continue to deny that there was ever such promise not to extend Nato eastward. Yet, it is absolutely unquestionable that there was.
And what is this persistent ” it was not a binding treaty” nonsense? Are Russian leaders to be blamed for trusting their US counterparts on such a crucial matter and not require a written word that would have been almost impossible to obtain anyway.
How can you really legally bind any country to never join an existing organization? Current events, and Ukraine’s leaders’ declarations on this point speak for themselves.
And let’s recall what the underlying security issue really is here: how do you think the US would react if there ever were the most remote hint, let alone a current diplomatic negotiation, to enable a Russian military presence near the border with Canada and/or Mexico?
Do you think that Washington would sit there accepting even the prospect of it?
If anything, Russian has shown a remarkable restraint in this matter, swallowing for over 20 years what the US would have never begun to accept in the first place.
Kateryna
Anyway, you dice it, this has very little to do with the Ukraine joining NATO, cause they aren’t, the US and the rest of NATO couldn’t be bothered to defend them, Ukraine is trying desperately to join and has made like zero progress. Point remains though, if Canada decided to join the Commonwealth of Nations would the US be justified to invade that country? If the US military incursions into latin america had actually been about steming soviet influence would that have actually made them justified?
Euromaiden was about the Ukraine moving towards the EU (which was all a bunch of bullshit, Ukraine was never going to be accepted into the EU), if Russia didn’t want the Ukraine to try and join NATO why did they give them every reason to by invading them and annexing their territory, after that a mutual defense treaty sounds pretty enticing, whatever agreement or pseudo-agreement is made is kinda void after one of the countries invades another one of those countries. If this is how Russia honours the Ukraine for giving up their nukes, they should have kept them.
A concerned citizen
Yes, we should have kept them. It was a dumb decision made by weak people, and since then it has cost us immensely more than the “high cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal”, which was the selling point for the populace at the time. We still have the technology, though ;)
phantonym
Disappointing to see something like this from FAIR, which as far as I know used to be a tad above running any ol compilation of the most excruciatingly lazy putinbot talking points.
Nazis in government! Western media scandalously not mentioning them even once! In hundreds of articles! …Svoboda has one seat out if 450. That’s embarrassing for Ukraine. That’s also the full and total sum of it at this point. Something embarrassing that has no practical implications whatsoever. The one time they actually got real numbers – about same ballpark Golden Dawn peaked I think – was before the revolution. In 2014 they tanked! So much for their evil Nazi coup power grab…
Btw let’s invade Greece for good measure! Oh wait they’re already in NATO, darn.
Anyways, this whole schtick of calling “facing prospect of impeachment, deciding to flee, after which no one can be bothered going through a moot impeachment process so technically not properly impeached” an actual coup… it’s just weird to me. Like leaving every match a walk over then proclaiming yourself undefeated.
While the finer points of how things panned out may not be discussed much (challenge to the overwhelmingly passed ad-hoc removal law eventually reached the constitutional court which refused to rule on it, meaning law stands, meaning not a coup, end of.) it’s just such an overt tell we’re dealing with someone either straight up paid, or so far up their own anti-imperialism they don’t even realize they’re in fact not anti imperialist. Not even a little bit. They’re just anti US, to the rabid extent imperialism is suddenly actually good if only it happens to troll the yanks.
The US is, by the way, awful and has done terrible things it should have faced actual consequences for but didn’t, and would probably act massively hypocritical were the tables turned. Just to get the whataboutism out of the way. Doesn’t make anything Russia is doing at all acceptable.
Besides morally abhorrent I also find it painfully low-effort to see the exact same lineup of mostly quote unquote alternative factoids a full eight years later. Nobody is even trying.
Adam Izr
Great post, agree 100%, Putin has absolutely no moral standing to invade the Ukraine, I liked to read FAIR to get underreported news, not pandering tripe.
Cal Lawson
I’m sure most Ukrainians *are* embarrassed that Svoboda has 1 seat out of 450 in the Verkhovna Rada.
But that’s not nearly as embarrassing as the United States, where Republicans have 50 seats out of 100 in the Senate and 211 out of 435 in the House of Representatives.
One of those dicks
That’s not as embarrassing as your mom, who has taken 51 out of every 100 dicks. Still, you don’t see me invading your mom. She consented.
Mike Maddden
A complete summary of the relevant history leading up to the current stand-off, coupled with an examination the one-sided corporate media attempts to foment war in Ukraine.
Thank you Bryce Greene.
Bob Lichtenfels
Great reporting. Thank you Bryce.
Hart Liss
The problem is not just a possible military action but Ukraine’s history of near constant dysfunction as a state going back to at least 1905. The core problem is a fight over economic hegemony, the EU with its track record of failing Ukraine against Russia’s EEC.
Going tit for tat with the Blob’s bullshit doesahuge dis serve because, as I said, there’s a lot more to and underlying this than is getting reported.
A concerned citizen
Beware, the article is clearly biased to whitewash Russia. For every true fact it presents, is does so, omitting a number of other facts that shows things in a different light. For instance, it’s true that Crimea was considered a part of Russia from 1920s to 1954. And it’s true that most of the population there speaks Russian. So what? I speak Russian too, but I hate Putin’s guts. Before Russia, Crimea was a part of the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate. Russian Tsars used Ukrainian Cossacks to conquer Crimea, but after the fact they started to pack the new territory with ethnic Russians. Moreover, the ‘plebiscite to join Russia’ in ’14 was held literally under the muzzles of Russian guns – there’s a video with the interview with one of the leaders of separatists, who confirms that himself. Russian soldiers literally dragged Crimean MPs to the Parliament and oversaw the ‘plebiscite’. No mention of that in that article. And the cherry on the bullshit cake: the goal of the ‘plebiscite’ was not to ‘join Russia’, but to secede from Ukraine. The author didn’t even do basic fact-checking.
And the author does so with every fact, exhibiting pro-Russia views and conveniently omitting the Ukrainian thoughts on the matter. How does Russian coin smell, Bryce? Ukraine doesn’t need US taxpayer’s money. We need peace and not being made into Putin’s thralls.
Adam Izr
I still don’t get how it was a coup, let me get this straight when Viktor Yanukovych backed out of his electorial commitment to move the Ukraine closer to EU and Nato, he became wildly unpopular with the majority of Ukrainians and they had a huge protest movement, that destabilized the country after he made a backdoor deal with Russia, you can say US and EU were using the Ukraine to antagonize Russia that is definitely true, they also could have descalated the situation anytime they wanted to, but instead chose to bolster the opposition, still doesn’t make it a coup, Russia is not well liked in the Ukraine for the same reason the US is not well liked in most of the rest of the world due to a long history of economic and political despotism from Imperial Russia to the USSR.
Alluding to snipers as being opposition funded is a really credulous statement, The Russian military was occupying the Crimean Peninsula at the time of the referrendum and had cut crimea off from the rest of the Ukraine, I am pretty sure the majority of crimeans supported annexation by russia, but that doesn’t excuse driving out all of the people who opposed russian annexation, then ethnically cleansing the region of crimean tatars. I wonder why the referrendum isn’t internationally recognized?
Yeah, I forgot about all the far-right elements in the Ukraine government the same ones who are steadfast against the Ukraine joining the EU or NATO, or fostering closer relations with the United States, somehow I don’t think they’re in control of the government right now.
I really detest UK, US and EU gamesmanship in the Ukraine and I think it has everything to do with trying to marginalize Russia for really meanspirited reasons, but trying to say that United States orchastrated a coup in the Ukraine, is as bad as trying to say Putin stole the election for Trump the facts just don’t support it.
Mark Soskin
I was in St. Petersburg back in 2012, and found a Russia Gov’t museum (i.e., Putin) exhibit that revealed his intensions back before this. It was all about how the dissolution of USSR’s SSRs was a grave error needing correction. So Putin had installed puppets as leaders. Helping overthrow a Ukraine puppet is NOT akin to U.S. putting in leaders in throughout Latin America, Iran, Vietnam, etc., etc. before that! And Ukraine’s new leader wasn’t at all our puppet, as his bio and subsequent behavior showed! He’s never shown interest in joining NATO like Balkan states or Warsaw Pact nations.
David McKeown
Thank goodness we have FAIR.I have never been a Putin supporter, nor one of Biden for that matter.The lies leading up to the Iraq war still leave a bitter taste in my mouth. The amassment of Russian troops, within Russia’s borders, obviously shows a Russian military intent. But is it intent to invade or intent to dissuade? The headlines screaming about an imminent invasion conveniently distract from Biden’s sagging popularity ratings. This is a predictable ploy now routinely utilized by American presidents. Nothing unites both parties like a war on foreign soil. The comical attempts to paint Putin as the arch villain, fails to see the predicament of Russia. Since the Berlin Wall fell and the Warsaw Pact disappeared., the need for NATO has completely evaporated. Instead, what has happened? NATO has expanded with Russia as its enemy. Ukraine is NOT a strategic core interest to the US but it IS a strategic core interest to Russia. Russia has every right to amass troops within its own borders. Ukraine should be a secure state but a neutral state.
A concerned citizen
Man, you don’t get it. This invasion thing rolls with a wide agenda, but the bare minimum for Putin is to have Crimea finally recognized as a Russian territory. This would create a precedent, which China inevitably, 100% sure will use on Taiwan, and probably more. Ukraine might be not a core interest for the US, but Taiwan is.
Cal Lawson
Everything Putin has done suggests that he *is* the arch villain. And his actions prove every day that the need for NATO is, if anything, even *greater* now that it was before the Berlin Wall fell.
And why should Ukraine be required to be neutral? Why shouldn’t they be able to decide that for themselves? If they want to divorce themselves entirely from Russia and join NATO, that should be allowed.
Joe Stewart
Russian tanks, Russian armored personnel carriers, and Russian soldiers armed with AKs are in Ukraine. Do those facts a month later adjust the manner in which you outline history?
Also, why did you choose to leave out the agreement among Russia, Ukraine, UK, and USA in which Ukraine gave up its nukes in return for territorial sovereignty, specifically Russian assurances that it would NOT attack Ukraine? The USA and UK need to impose significant sanctions on Russia if only to convince other countries we ask to give up their nukes (I’m thinking of Israel, Iran, and N Korea) otherwise they can point to Russias actions and inaction on the part of UK & USA to justify retaining their nukes.
A concerned citizen
What about Putin’s “path to de-escalation” now? It’s a full scale invasion, people die out there, I hear explosions from my flat. Despicable hypocrites and their lapdogs.
Litch
Well, this didn’t age well, did it?
April Flowers
Public opinion is a powerful tool in peaceful resolution of conflicts. By publishing this piece of deceptive “journalism,” FAIR is being complicit in violence inflicted in Ukraine. It must do better.
I urge FAIR to immediately retract, edit, or rescind this article.
I urge FAIR subscribers to cancel their subscriptions if this is not done.
And I urge FAIR to be transparent about where their funding comes from. What non-profits give them grants? None are listed on the website.
The article’s author (not reporter) is a university student, which might excuse his intellectual laziness. FAIR editors should not be given such a pass and should be held accountable for this blatant set of Russian talking points.
One only needs to read some of the rebuttal comments to recognize this article’s critical shortcomings.
For those not so lazy as the author, I offer these links:
Ten Reasons Why The Conflict in Eastern Ukraine is Not a Civil War
https://uacrisis.org/en/52708-conflict-eastern-ukraine-not-civil-war
Maidan Revolution
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-ukraines-euromaidan-protests
YANUKOVYCH
https://eurasianet.org/a-brief-history-of-corruption-in-ukraine-the-yanukovych-era
Former Trump aide approved ‘black ops’ to help Ukraine president
(Read how Manafort and Devine (Bernie’s campaign manager 2016) pillaged the Ukrainian people to support a kleptocrat.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-approved-black-ops-to-help-ukraine-president
Russian interference in the 2016 [US] election was “sweeping and systemic.”
April Flowers
Adding link re: Russian interference from the American Constitution Society (ACS) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
Nat
I urge you to stop telling others what to publish because it is not what you would like to read. That’s just nuts, dude. We have to read all the crap the mainstream media writes, and you don’t see us acting like unhappy toddlers!!
April
FAIR is supposed to enlighten readers, not publish easily provable lies. Sorry you think it’s childish to push back against dishonest media. But that’s what FAIR is doing in this and many other cases. Learn to think critically.
Lol
It’s not surprising that the first link you posted is from an organization founded by George Soros, lmao.
Alvaro Hurtado
The U.S. would not be justified in invading Mexico or Canada regardless of who was ruling those countries. Russia is not justified in invading Ukraine. I can understand showing concern, but invasions are not a solution.
A lot of the factors mentioned in this article are important in terms of one side of the context, yes, but there is a lack of analysis regarding the Russian government’s actions and why this is not the solution they should be seeking.
Julie Wassmer
Excellent and informative analysis.
I’m in the UK and have tweeted this widely.
Many thanks.
Lulu
Woah this is so informative! Thanks for this
GBC
Excellent overview of the conflict. Thank you
Natalia Garcia
THIS is what journalism should be all about! You are an absolute jewel, I’m so glad I found this article! Keep up the amazing work!
Tony B
This article beats around the bush extensively making points that — while relevant — are hardly a justification or even solid M.O. explainer for Putin, which is the real thing at the center here, not Russia.
The article keeps referring to viktor yanukovych as a freely elected leader — countless reporting has shown not only did he win by actual fraud (not Guliani fraud) but Russia POISONED the other candidate, leaving him disfigured.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_presidential_election
Expansion of NATO vs. State intervention. Countries have chosen by freely and fairly elected representatives to join the treaty organization. They can leave at any time. Has the author considered that maybe Estonia likes the fact that the have a better human rights record than Russia, higher GDP per capita etc and maybe fear intervention like Ukraine does?
A better analogy to the Crimean Annexation would be if the US invaded and took over Juarez — near the TX border. Many Mexicans there have family in the US. I’m sure many would also like to be US citizens given the wealth and resources of the US. Does that make that invasion and annexation morally good?
Arming of neo-Nazis is also propaganda straight from RT. There are some very unsavory far right wing people in the don bas but the idea that that is all there is — vastly over simplified the conflict let along ignores the fact that Kyiv and the DonBas are Totally different regions and all of Ukraine is facing a WWII style invasion.
Lastly the author of this article might want to fully read the historically inaccurate, jingoist 5000 word essay Putin himself wrote in July 2021 about how Ukraine is basically not a country.
Lol
“Arming of neo-Nazis is also propaganda straight from RT.”
Do you not realize that the Azov Batallion is openly neo-nazi? The US sent millions of dollars to fund them and Congress actually fought back and forth about stopping it.
Paul
Thanks for a superb guide to understanding the wider context!
Tony B
Most of this is factually inaccurate see post above
david eberhardt
we see what we see on tv- please do not apologize- we see russians bombing apt buildings and u s drones killing civilians- for russia or any other war mongers like the u s- support the radical peace movements wherever they are w specifics and start the blather- you turn us off w endless contraianism (sp) dave oeace activist in baltimore
Dave Fromaus
Great article against the trend regardless of the current invasion it actually demonstrates the concept or ,dare I say moral of backing an animal into a corner.
Putin is no angel, but this is another sad example of the self appointed World Police doing another Vietnam. Or was it Afghanistan or Somalia, or Kosovo or Grenada…
Denisa
To Bryce Greene.
Thank you for this complex and very informative article, which filled in many gaps.
I just truly hope that the conflict in Ukraine will be resolved soon so people don’t have to suffer.
Marcel Kincaid
What the hell happened to FAIR? These are Putin lies.
April Flowers
Good question! FAIR has been off the rails for some time now. And this article is truly unconscionable.
Why does FAIR not publish the foundations that support them? Why are they not transparent? Who knows how to look at their tax filings? That’d be a good bit of research to do.
Note too: They have no board of directors, so no one to keep them in check. FAIR.ORG is NOT a good organization to donate to, or subscribe to. I strongly urge readers to withdraw support. By regurgitating Putin’s talking points they are complicit in the attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
Lol
All of the sources are from western media, lmfao
Kiers
on the IMF leaking money out via Argentine corruption read “The IMF’s 2018 Stand-By Arrangement with Argentina: An Ultra Vires Act?” Biggest loan in history “gone”/”poof” in 2 years….capital flight! Thanks Lagarde! Thanks Macri, family friend of the Trumps! Where’d the money go? What was your cut?
Luis Gabriel Aguilera
This is a comprehensive article that I will be sharing widely in the days to come. Keep an eye on your view stats. And thank you this indispensable work.
LGA
David Rosenberg
This piece is riddled with weasel words, and it has aged like milk.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1500495309595725831?s=20&t=pZEUFKMQ0WZ42Erblks1NQ
Jon Block
Excellent reporting, Bryce! Thank you for parting the waters of what Mose Allison called “a sea of lies.”
Xaraja
This is a mess. There’s good stuff, like pointing out that we wouldn’t like it if someone did to us what we do to Russia, and there’s weird spin like pretending Ukrainians are just our pawns and have no free agency and near lies of leaving out that US agents like Paul Manafort we’re just as involved in getting the 2004 and 2010 governments elected as any Western agents were in fomenting movements against those governments.
And then there’s the very very real fact that this piece feels like propaganda for Putin’s reason for going to war – to fight Nazis – in a country where the president is a Jew and the people they don’t like are the Slavic peoples they don’t really see as white. Somebody needs to go away and think really hard about how they ended up supporting white supremacists who are pretending to be fighting white supremacy in order to actually do white supremacy. It’s ugly and it’s not ok.
And finally, Ukrainians don’t have to be another Belarus living under an am extremely repressive dictator just so they can be a comfortable buffer state for another dictator in Russia.
We do terrible stuff here, and it’s terrible that we don’t know it. But we don’t have to lie about what other countries do and pretend we are the only bad guys in the world. The world is more complicated than that. Sometimes there are no good guys except the actual victims and the people getting caught in the middle.
I may have to stop listening to Counter spin. I know enough about this issue to know some of how awfully wrong you got this one, but i don’t always know the other topics, which is why I was listening. And you did such a horrendous hatchet job on this that i don’t trust i could pick it apart in the future – there isn’t fact and then opinion in a separate part that i could consider.
Rene Porras
How can you write such a long article and not mention Paul Manafort?
David
Yo for real!! I found many issues with this article. Some of it is frankly misleading, like mentioning the UN Human Rights organization decrying abuses escalating in Ukraine since 2014. I looked it up, and those human rights abuses in question were committed in pro-Russian-separatist controlled areas…
Yeah, the Azov Battalion and the Nazis in Ukraine’s Army is very problematic, but it’s not like Nazis opting into military duty is anything unique to Russia.
The situation is extremely complicated. I’ve spent years now trying to wade through the muck and figure out just what the hell is happening in Ukraine. This piece shows Russia’s perspective, which is very important to understand. However, it seems to lack nuance. And at the end of the day, none of the events mentioned justify an invasion on Ukraine. While the article doesn’t explicitly support war in Ukraine, it sure seems to imply that it’s justified (by explaining only Russia’s side of the story).
Both American as well as Russian imperialism are bad. Very, very bad. Both of them. And now that Putin had described Ukrainian sovereignty as a “myth”, and now that Russian troops have committed many atrocious war crimes against Ukraine, and considering that almost the entire country is resisting their occupation, it’s pretty fucking clear by now that Russian forces are not in Ukraine to liberate them. Man, I expected more from FAIR.
Ted
No surprise that the US is backing fascist elements against Russia. It’s well documented that – in the years following WW2 – Washington actively recruited former Nazi collaborators in Germany and the rest of Europe to subvert the Soviet Union. A simple internet search turns up well sourced books and articles to this effect. You can also see that Ukrainian (and other eastern European) émigre associations and churches in the US fundraising for the Republican Party are tainted by activist leaders who trace their lineage to Nazi collaborators in Europe. The well connected groups were exposed by Russell Bellant during George Bush senior’s election campaign. The embarrassment led to RNC to publicly distance itself from the party’s own so-called Heritage Groups Council.
Randi Rhodes
Your piece is utter bullshit
For example the Ukrainian Rada voted to IMPEACH Victor Yanukovych in 2014. The impeachment was backed by 328 of the 447 deputies.
He then fled to RUSSIA as did his loyalists in the Parliament.
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko who Yanokovitch had imprisoned in 2011 was finally freed from jail
New elections were held. Julia lost to Petro Poroshenko who won with 54% of the vote. Of course, Crimea (annexed by Russia) lost their right to vote and in the Donbas regions taken by Putin and occupied) most polling places were kept closed.
We are now four elections past this event. Doesn’t sound like a coup or PRESSURE FROM THE IMF or from the US
Stop this crap now!
TeeJae
I hope keeping your head in the sand helps you sleep at night.
TeeJae
Excellent piece, Bryce! BRAVO!
Rev. Glen Thamert
Where is coverage about War Crimes? Innocent civilians are being slaughtered. Putin and his military invaded. Yes, there are lots of facts not covered. If you and I were Ukrainian victims and now refugees, I think our perspective would be different; we would grieve our homes and lives that are now destroyed. Putin and Biden – and all the forces behind them – they are clearly a part of this entire tragedy. History will be the final judge after all the dead bodies are counted and then buried. When will we humans ever learn; war’s not the answer
Bee Din
Propaganda news.