5 persistent falsehoods about events in Ukraine

Here are the five most common myths about events in Ukraine, together with a short explanation of why they are wrong.

The Russian propaganda machine has been full throttle in recent months, with television stations such as RT painting a completely different picture of the Euromaiden uprising in Ukraine than other, more independent outlets.

And it isn’t hard to work out why: Putin was constructing the purported rational for his invasion and annexation of Crimea which, according to the Russian narrative, was overrun by ‘fascists’ intent on persecuting Russian-speaking citizens and generally causing mayhem.

What’s been so depressing is the extent to which the Russian version of events in Ukraine has been so effortlessly adopted, to varying degrees, by some in the West.

Here are the five most common myths which are doing the rounds, together with a short explanation of why they are nonsense.

The EU/Nato ‘provoked’ Putin

Both Little Englander eurosceptics and the regressive left have been portraying Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea as a response to the ‘expansion’ of the European Union and Nato. Spouting the Russian line almost verbatim (some things never change), Seamus Milne wrote a few weeks ago that the Russian annexation of Crimea was the “fruit of western expansion”.

“The US and its allies have…relentlessly expanded Nato up to Russia’s borders, incorporating nine former Warsaw Pact states and three former Soviet republics into what is effectively an anti-Russian military alliance in Europe. The European association agreement which provoked the Ukrainian crisis also included clauses to integrate Ukraine into the EU defence structure,” Milne wrote.

In reality, Nato and the EU haven’t ‘expanded’ so much as welcomed into the security umbrella former communist states that were desperate to escape the Russian ‘sphere of influence’.

Considering these countries often languished under Russian-backed dictatorships for much of the 20th century, this should hardly come as a surprise. The Russian annexation of Ukraine should drive the point home further – are the Baltic states going to be watching events in Ukraine with a feeling of regret at joining Nato? Of course not. Russian aggression encourages Nato expansion, rather than the other way around.

It also isn’t necessary to speculate as to Vladimir Putin’s motivations in Crimea. As Putin said last week, he believes that “Crimea has always been part of Russia”. Less self defence in the face of ‘provocation’ and more naked imperialism. Putin has made no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union. The invasion of Crimea should be seen in this context.

The new Ukrainian government is ‘fascist’

Were this actually true then it would be deeply concerning, only it isn’t. Ukrainian nationalists were certainly among those demonstrating against former President Viktor Yanukovych last month, but then so were plenty of Jews. And contrary to the Moscow line, the Ukrainian Jewish community believes that it is pro-Russian provocateurs, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, who are behind a recent spate of attacks on synagogues in Ukraine. Three of the new Ukrainian ministers denounced as ‘fascists’ by Moscow are also themselves Jews, such as deputy prime minister Vladimir Groisman.

Chairman of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine Josef Zissels has characterised Putin’s message of widespread Ukrainian anti-semitism as part of an “unprecedented massive Russian propaganda that recalls Soviet times”.

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in an ‘illegal coup’

Listening to some of the more bitter arguments emanating from Russia and Russian apologists in the West, you could easily believe that former Ukrainian President Yanukovych was some kind of democrat, rather than a corrupt autocrat who had been beset by credible allegations of electoral fraud since he returned to office in 2010.

Rather than being thrown out in some sort of anti-democratic ‘coup’ last month, Yanukovych fled to Russia because the democratically elected Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach him for the massacre of peaceful demonstrators. If you don’t believe that this is a good enough reason for the impeachment of a President (elected or otherwise) then I submit that you aren’t really a democrat.

Despite Russian rhetoric, the real coup was in Crimea, where the Crimean Assembly building was taken over at gunpoint by Russian forces pretending not to be Russian forces.

Russians living in Crimea are in danger

One Russian citizen has died in the current crisis, and he was shot by pro-Yanukovych snipers. Rumours spread by the Russian government – that Russian speakers in Crimea are threatened by the new government in Kiev – are just that: baseless rumours. More Crimeans have been fleeing from Crimea to other regions of Ukraine than Russians have been fleeing from Crimea and eastern Ukraine to Russia, mainly in order to escape heavily armed and violent Russian militias.

There is simply no evidence that Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are threatened by the government in Kiev. Russian claims also have a worrying historical precedent: Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia was based on a German claim of privations being suffered by the ethnic German population in the country.

There is a moral equivalence between the actions of the West and those of Russia/Crimea demonstrates the West’s ‘hypocrisy’

It isn’t difficult to make this sort of self-flagellating argument, but it doesn’t contribute anything very useful to the debate. It can also lead a person to make silly comparisons. So for example, in the New Statesman last week Mehdi Hasan compared the Russian invasion of Ukraine to Nato intervention in Kosovo, ignoring the fact that in the case of the latter, intervention occurred on the back of a “systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments” by Serb forces (not my words, but those of the UN).

As Hasan writes:

“it is ‘illegal and illegitimate’ for Russia to try to detach Crimea from Ukraine by means of a dodgy referendum, Hague says. Indeed, it is. But was it any less illegal or illegitimate for the west to detach Kosovo from Serbia in 1999 with a 78-day Nato bombing campaign?”

I don’t know about ‘legality’ (an unreliable construct based on who votes which way at the UN Security Council), but the Russian annexation of Crimea is self-evidently more ‘illegitimate’ than Nato action in Kosovo. As the Economist put it this week: “Nato’s bombing of Kosovo came after terrible violence and exhaustive efforts at the UN – which Russia blocked”. Kosovo also seceded on its own initiative nine years after intervention and was not annexed in the manner of the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Western states can certainly be hypocritical, but the issue here is that Russia under Vladimir Putin is bullying and blackmailing its neighbours. Talking about Kosovo/Iraq/what Tony Blair had for lunch/Henry Kissinger/ is pure whataboutery.

48 Responses to “5 persistent falsehoods about events in Ukraine”

  1. Asteri

    While there is much to take issue with in regards to Russia’s behaviour
    towards Ukraine and Crimea, some of these “myths” are not really myths.

    “The EU/Nato ‘provoked’ Putin”

    In a broad sense – yes! The west (i.e Washington) broke an unofficial
    agreement with Gorbachev in 1990 that the USSR would accept a re-united Germany
    on the condition that NATO would not expand to its borders. Since 1991
    Washington decided to mercilessly exploit Russia’s weakness and continue to needlessly
    provoke it. There is little evidence that Moscow initially wanted any such conflict
    with the west. This has only emboldened Putin and justified Russian policy to
    its public as being a reaction to something they did not start. NATO had no
    need to exist after 1991, and Washington chose to aggressively provoke Russia
    for no reason other than to justify NATOs continued existence; the result has obviously
    been to justify Russian counter measures internally.

    “The new Ukrainian government is ‘fascist’”

    Well no, but its not a pleasant picture.

    Isn’t sanitizing Svoboda just a little bit hypocritical?

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ivan-katchanovski/ukrainian-%E2%80%98freedom%E2%80%99-party-should-be-ringing-alarm-bells

    “There is a moral equivalence between the actions of the West
    and those of Russia/Crimea demonstrates the West’s ‘hypocrisy’.”

    I don’t know about moral but there is an equivalence.
    Calling it “silly” means dismiss what is inconvenient. The west (USA, UK and Germany)
    engineered Kosovo ‘independence’ in violation to every international law concerning
    territorial integrity, UN resolution 1244 and the constitution of Serbia, all
    of which the west had agreed to abide by. The idea “Kosovo also seceded on its
    own initiative” is utterly false. Serbia bent over backwards in 2007 to negotiate
    a more than generous autonomy deal. The west had no intention of seriously negotiating
    and only did so to look as if they were doing things by the book. The US just
    claimed that Kosovo was so extraordinary that it was beyond the realms of legality
    and thus ‘special.’ This is bogus and not supported by any serious legal or IR
    experts. It created a precedent (that the US denies exists) and this is what we
    have. It is the sort of argument that would be supported by, say, dangerous authoritarian
    states.

    But anyway, did anyone ask the Crimeans if they wanted to be
    transferred to Ukraine in 1954? Even if it had been done fully legally without
    Russian forces, it would still have had the same result.

  2. Caroline Louise

    Why do you not mention that the neo-Nazi Svoboda and Right Sector hold four posts in the new government? Or that several Israeli MPs have expressed worry over the antiSemitism of the far right in Ukraine? Why no mention that all the Region MPs were forcibly evicted from the government by the protestors and that the current parliament has no representation from almost half the country? Is this really an attempt to tell the whole truth?

  3. christianguthier

    I’m surprised about the blind support you are giving to the US/EU actions against Russia.

    In your diatribe you also forget to mention that the Crimea has a majority Russian population and is of strategic significance to Russia. The Crimea was handed over to Ukraine in the 50s – when it was part of the Soviet Union. Since this is no longer the case, Russians are jumpy about encroachment, and certainly don’t want to give up military advantages.

    Looking at Syria, I worry about the consequences of our meddling in yet another nation’s struggle for progress and development. Will we end up with another blood bath by a western incited civil war?

  4. Doug Smith

    Useful piece from Foreign Policy magazine on the fascists in the Ukrainian government:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/18/yes_there_are_bad_guys_in_the_ukrainian_government

  5. Matthew Rees

    I gave up reading this nonsense after, “In reality, Nato and the EU haven’t ‘expanded’ so much as welcomed into the security umbrella former communist states that were desperate to escape the Russian ‘sphere of influence’.” So Nato is allowed to welcome countries in to their security umbrella but Russia cannot do the same for Crimea?

  6. Michael Harris

    Nato and the EU based on common consent. While Russia’s annexation of the Crimea is based on force. There is quite a difference.

  7. Michael Harris

    Serbia was in the process of engineering genocide in Kosovo. The responsibility to protect doctrine trumps territory integrity.

  8. Jim Denham

    Rather surprisingly, the Graun’s coverage of these events has been pretty good, mainly thanks to their excellent reporter Luke Harding. He’s been especially good at dealing with Putin’s lie (assiduously repeated by apolgists like the Morning Star) that the Ukrainian revolution was a “fascist” “coup”. It goes without saying that the public school Stalinist Milne sides with Putin, but for once he and his friends haven’t succeeded in taking control of the paper’s editorial line, which has been excellent. Google Shiraz Socialist for more on this.

  9. Suada

    To be honest, the West should have recognized Kosovo’s independence in 1999, while Milosevic was still in power, rather than wait for 9 years and keep the province in a tense state of limbo, and then punish a government which was not responsible for the atrocities you describe.

  10. swatnan

    The Voice of America has spoken. Why do we have to put up with such nonsense?

  11. Asteri

    Russia indirectly aided the secessions, but did not go as far as recognising them or pressurising others to do so. Presumably, the intention was to keep them ‘warm’ as an insurance policy should the host nation attempt to joint NATO. The Russians believed the host nations valued their territorial integrity over NATO, so eventually Russia would permit reintegration once the hosts had returned to the fold. They presumed wrong, but Saakashvili made a gamble that NATO would defend him anyway – it didn’t pay off.

    A 1999 recognition would never have been seriously considered. Likely there would have been a local Serbian uprising, and Belgrade would have been compelled to resort to a military response, that Russia would be compelled, in turn, to support; which would have led to WWIII. Waiting a decade was well played as it let the dust settle and lured Belgrade and Russia into a false sense of security before they realized it was too late.

  12. Suada

    Russia provided direct military aid to the Abkhaz and Transnistrian separatists, and although it did not officially recognize them, that doesn’t change the fact it did de-facto separate them from their respective countries (as you say, to put pressure on them not to join NATO or the West), and has provided them with diplomatic and military support ever since.

    Your claim that a 1999 recognition would have resulted in WW3, to be perfectly frank, is just speculation, and one which does not to me sound very credible. Russia after all, did practically nothing to help Serbia when it was bombed, except bluster and bluff, and was in no state to go to war with NATO at the time, similar to what Serb nationalist paper tiger did before and since. Still, we’ll probably never know for certain.

  13. Trofim

    “Putin has made no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union”.

    Just those words make it clear to me how reliant you are on second and third hand sources. You might care to look at this, then, Mr Bloodworth. At 1 min 15 seconds in, Putin clarifies what he said:

    https://tinyurl.com/ownpuuo

    “кто не жалеет распада советского союза – у того нет сердца, а у того кто желает
    его восстановления в прежнем виде – у того нет головы”.

    “Those who don’t regret breakup of the USSR have no heart. Those who want to
    resurrect it have no brain”.

    Now that’s definitely a bloke making no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the USSR, eh? The first sentence is often quoted in substance if not in words as a longing to recreate the USSR, but, interestingly, western sources often forget to quote the second half. I can’t imagine why.

  14. Asteri

    Yes, its alternative history! However as much as Russia was unable or unwilling to start a war of Kosovo. They probably believed that Milosevic’s government (whom they had always hated) would not survive and a new government would be able to get Kosovo back eventually. That seems what both believed would happen. Any attempt to make it attempt to make it independent then would likely have provoked some kind of reaction – maybe an attempt to retake North Kosovo by force.

    One of the reasons Putin came to power was because Kosovo was such huge diplomatic defeat for Russia and one that Jelcin could not recover from. It was that (and other factors) that motivated the remnants of the Soviet old guard to remove him and take over themselves. Most everything the Russians do can be traced back to this.

  15. Suada

    Hey, sorry if I sounded a bit rude. I agree that Serbia would have tried to carve out a part of northern Kosovo, and to destabilize the Kosovar state (something it already has attempted to do in fact) through the establishment of parallel institutions and diplomatic obstruction (as well as a racist propaganda campaign abroad attempting to delegitimize the Kosovar state), I however, don’t think Serbia, militarily weak, with a discredited regime, and on the verge of economic collapse, would have risked an open war with NATO over the issue. I don’t see how it would have provoked more of a reaction than the initial bombing campaign did; Kosovo’s independence naturally flowed from this. I don’t think punishing Serbia in 2008, with the Milosevic regime long gone, was a good idea.

    Your point on Putin’s coming to power is interesting, and I had never considered that. I would however note that Putin was already quite powerful even before Kosovo, and I think Yetsin’s drastic unpopularity due to his disastrous internal policies played a larger role. Russia has a long history of interfering in its neighbour’s affairs, and I don’t find convincing the claim that “everything they do can be traced back to Kosovo”.

  16. James Todd

    You think “the West” is responsible for the Syrian Civil War? You certainly believe in no-holds barred self-flagellation, that’s for sure.

  17. Asteri

    Serbia’s reaction to Kosovo and north Kosovo was entirely predictable and understandable. Serbia has a duty to protect the Serbs in Kosovo who are Serbian citizens. The west does not have to like it, but it is Serbia’s right to reject and diplomatically challenge the secession; its not doing anything illegal or anything Georgia or Ukraine aren’t doing.

    Serbia’s political situation since 2000 has been a disgrace and no country has been so betrayed and let down by their own political class as Serbia has. All the infighting, stalemate and looting the place blind (worse than under Milosevic) only helped to discredit the country and suited the west just fine in regard to Kosovo.

    The only comparison was Jeltsin’s Russia. What was interesting was this small clique of liberal minded reformers who genuinely believed they could have a good relationship with the west and gradually integrate with it. They were competing with the Soviet old guard and the oligarch interests, and after Kosovo they were blamed for Russia’s defeat and discredited, allowing for the Putin and those around him to take over and purge the Jeltsin oligarchs. Of course there was a huge pile of kindling caused by the collapse of the USSR, the defeat in Chechnya and all the corruption and lawlessness, but I think Kosovo was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  18. Suada

    I’m not talking about what Serbia allegedly had the ‘right’ to do (I’m pretty sure Serbia wouldn’t find the prospect of Hungary, Albania and Bosnia interfering in its internal affairs on account of their nationals to be very congenial, but that’s a different issue), I’m talking about what it could do under the circumstances. And it is my position that Serbia would not have risked an open military confrontation with NATO in 1999, but would have instead used diplomatic means to destabilize the Kosovar state, just as it has done. Whether or not it has a moral or legal right to do this is another question (truth be told, I didn’t initially support Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, but I find Serbia entirely unworthy of any sympathy).

    I think here in BiH we have been let down by our political classes as much as Serbia :), but yes, I agree with you on Serbia’s political class. Serbia’s own extremely disruptive policies in the region since the late 1980s also discredited the country, but I do believe it has come considerable way since the days of Milosevic.

    You could be right in relation to Putin’s rise. I admittedly am not an expert on the topic, though then again I can’t say I have very much sympathy for them.

  19. Asteri

    In the cases of Bosnia and Albania, their con-nationals (co-religionists in Bosnia) never lived in a either an Albanian or Bosnian state or had citizenship. The Kosovo Serbs were/are part of Serbia always had citizenship and passports which is a big difference. Hungary is a different story, but it has bigger issues with Slovakia and Romania.

    Milosevic had a popularity boost during the NATO attack and could have conceivably turned this into launching a military operation into the north, I think the army and citizenry would have taken up arms and done it for free if it came to it. He had always said that taking Kosovo from Serbia was what was always being intended and if NATO validated that belief straight away he may have been emboldened. Pure speculation but people do crazy things when they are desperate.

    I think that when it comes to Serbia, the Russian position can be understood in two ways. One is rooted in pan-slavism and a genuine romantic nationalism that sees the Serbs as a brother nation. The other that sees Serbia as the last hold Russia has in the Balkans and if Serbia goes west their influence will disappear forever. The more astute Serbian politicians know how to play them off. Even in Bulgarija there is a strong pro-Russian sentiment, but thats faded with NATO/EU membership. In the 1990s it was a mix of both these mindsets. They supported the Serbs as a cause, even though they loathed the regime in Belgrade. They hated Milosevic ever since he stupidly backed the August coup rather than wait to see what would happen. Ironically, if Russia had had more influence, they could have ousted Milosevic when the first opportunity came in 1992.

    Its a similar situation to the relationship between the Turks and Bosnian-Muslims.

  20. Stephen Hildon

    I think the Tymoshenko tape released a few hours after this article was posted has proved the Russians right.

    I thought the Ukrainian parliament impeached Yanukovich because he fled the country and not the other way round. Not that the parliament followed the constitution in any case.

  21. Duckworks

    Putin’s land grab was all about securing Crimea’s huge territorial and offshore oil and gas reserves for Russia’s petro-elite, and protecting Gazprom’s monopoly. ‘Protecting ethnic Russians’ was a sham, and everyone but the wacky old commie Michael Parenti-types knows this. The only real puzzle is why Putin undertook this annexation at THIS time, on the eve of the previously planned G8 meeting in Sochi.

  22. Duckworks

    Sorry, but Mother Russia–Tsarist, Commie, or Gazprom-run–never ‘welcomed’ the Ukrainians, Tatars, or any other group under anything but an imperial yoke. Membership in NATO is voluntary; the old Warsaw Pact wasn’t. If you hate the West so much, maybe you should go to Russia, and enjoy the protection of Putin’s bosom.

  23. Duckworks

    Why don’t you mention the fact that over 600 people (journalists, etc.) ‘disappeared’ under Yanukovych? Or that Putin’s Russia is a homophobic, ethnic chauvinist gangster state that arbitrarily arrests and murders dissidents, rigs elections (witness the huge 2011 protests in Russia, by Russians, against the sham election), props up the murderous al Assad regime in Syria, and is run by an ex-KGB self-described thug who may have set up the 1999 apartment bombings that were used to justify a savagely brutal, near-genocidal war in Chechnya?

  24. Matthew Rees

    Nobody ever voted to join Nato but the people of Crimea have voted to rejoin Russia. What have you got against democracy?

  25. Matthew Rees

    The reuniting of Crimea wit Russia is based on massive popular support by the people of Crimea in a referendum. They chose to leave Ukraine which has a new government imposed by the force of a mob. Democracy is on Russia’s side in this one.

  26. Michael Harris

    Except the OSCE have described the process behind the referendum as unfair.

  27. Charles Thompson

    If Alex Salmond had decided when he first came to power to call an independence. referendum because he felt the Scots were being threatened with violence by Nazi Fascists from England..If he decided to hold a referendum within 2 weeks. The ballot options being independence or greater devolution with no ‘no option. If he then banned all anti Scots tv, newspapers, internet and put the Scots Army on the Streets and created such an atmosphere that most people opposed would not vote. He barred all outside election monitors. Many here would cerebrate a great show of democracy
    .

  28. Asteri

    R2P is not a law or something countries all agreed to accept. Its a ‘norm’ or a notion that some countries decide to selectively invoke. Saying that it “trumps territory integrity” is what you might call, ‘controversial’.

  29. Matthew Rees

    It was certainly a lot fairer than the way that the government was replaced in Ukraine and are you seriously suggesting that a totally fair referendum would have produced another result? Besides, we respect the results of unfair elections in many countries.

  30. Michael Harris

    We “respect the results” is weasel words; we condemn the process, but we may respect the results simply due to realpolitik. That’s difference. I’m not sure the UK has said an unfair election is fair in quite some time. The same is not true of Russia.

  31. marisviktors

    Svoboda is not neo-Nazi. Putin is a Nazi however.

  32. marisviktors

    You forgot to use the word ‘legality’ in your propaganda piece.

  33. marisviktors

    A fraudulent referendum.

  34. marisviktors

    No it isn’t.

  35. marisviktors

    You have an extremely warped definition of democracy but as a Kremlin troll I suppose we have to expect that.

  36. Doug Smith

    In 2013 the World Jewish Congress labelled Svoboda neo-Nazi and called on European governments to consider banning the party.

  37. Matthew Rees

    And that shows the problem with this debate. Too many people are blinded by their anti-Russia prejudices to see the inconsistencies in their arguments and so find themselves arguing against democracy.

    I do not approve of Putin’s Russia in general but he is clearly in the right here in allowing an autonomous region with an overwhelming Russian majority to rejoin Russia following a referendum and, in doing so, to escape the mob rule that deposed a duly elected leader in Ukraine.

  38. Matthew Rees

    You’ve thrown away any right to be taken seriously after that stupid comment. To claim that a coup is more democratic than a referendum is laughable.

  39. Matthew Rees

    All elections are flawed in some way. Are you seriously suggesting that if the referendum had been run differently that a 97% yes would have been a majority no?

  40. Mr. B

    In your view West’s ‘hypocrisy’ is different from Russia’s Hypocrisy. How so? Both are pursuing their own naked self-interests with little regard to ‘international law’.
    Here’s an illustration: Guess why the Canadian prime minister Harper was the first Western leader to pay a visit to the new government in Kiev? Here’s a hint: there art 1.5 million ethnic Ukrainians living in Canada and the next Canadian election will be in 2015.

  41. Conrad

    Yanucovych was impeached, which is a strong democratic tradition, check, voted out of office by Parliament, totally legal. Secondly, the referendum had a 95% approval to it, if you had any grasp of politics you would know a referendum where more than 90% of the population vote one way, is basically always rigged, you ever here of someone in the west winning something by a 90% margin? Putin has a long track record of rigging elections in his own country, (See Chechen voting records in the last elections) also you complain about fascists in parliament but what have you to say of the fascists from across Europe who were brought in to monitor these elections, I mean getting Fascists to monitor an election fairly is like trusting fire not to burn shit up. Non-Russians were also barred from voting. The US and some EU states have a history of violating other peoples sovereignty, but if anything Britain has been the most reluctant agent in punishing Russia while modern day human rights icon who stands up to NSA surveillance Germany who has a lot more interest in keeping Russia happy (Gas gas gas!) have largely been leading the charge despite their interests.

  42. Conrad

    Your an idiot if you believe 97% of any population agrees to something like that so universally, i doubt there was that big a margin in the vote when Rhodesia implemented Black Majority Rule, and they basically endured a century of slavery under a group of whites that made up 4% of the population… if that.

  43. Dave Roberts

    I think the left in this country has lost whatever shred of credibility it had over this issue. Seamus Milne is of course an unreconstructed apologist for Stalinism and the increasingly ridiculous Socialist Unity site run by the Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Chippenham in Witshire Andy Newman has the whole thing down a western conspiracy.

  44. Черногория Братская Страна

    Only those brainless people who believe in
    everything they see on CNN and others pay-per-report “news” TV, believe
    in this Anti-Propaganda. Ukrainian maidaun was delivered by Ukrainian Nazi
    parties, not that all of the people there were Nazis, but the fact is that Ukrainian
    Nazis and radical parties are running the show in Ukraine. Fact about NATO is that
    just in last 15 years they destroyed more than five countries and managed to
    kill over 2.000.000 people. Libya
    is now destroyed country where Libyans kill each other in thousands every
    day…do CNN show that? Of course not, as NATO doesn’t allow them to show their
    failure. Iraq didn’t have nuclear chemical weapons, and they destroyed great
    country of Iraq, now we don’t here about that country anymore…not to mention
    other countries they have destroyed….NATO (Americans) interest is to create
    as many wars as possible because they can survive only in that situation and
    the reason NATO (US) is going against Russia is that they don’t want to see
    close business relationship between Russia and EU even though that benefit
    both, EU and Russia, but if everything is going well, than people will ask
    “why do we need NATO (US) and their mass destruction power?” So that
    is the reason why US-NATO will do anything against Europe
    free of conflicts

  45. Черногория Братская Страна

    Only those brainless people who believe in
    everything they see on CNN and others pay-per-report “news” TV, believe
    in this Anti-Propaganda. Ukrainian maidaun was delivered by Ukrainian Nazi
    parties, not that all of the people there were Nazis, but the fact is that Ukrainian
    Nazis and radical parties are running the show in Ukraine. Fact about NATO is that
    just in last 15 years they destroyed more than five countries and managed to
    kill over 2.000.000 people. Libya
    is now destroyed country where Libyans kill each other in thousands every
    day…do CNN show that? Of course not, as NATO doesn’t allow them to show their
    failure. Iraq didn’t have nuclear chemical weapons, and they destroyed great
    country of Iraq, now we don’t here about that country anymore…not to mention
    other countries they have destroyed….NATO (Americans) interest is to create
    as many wars as possible because they can survive only in that situation and
    the reason NATO (US) is going against Russia is that they don’t want to see
    close business relationship between Russia and EU even though that benefit
    both, EU and Russia, but if everything is going well, than people will ask
    “why do we need NATO (US) and their mass destruction power?” So that
    is the reason why US-NATO will do anything against Europe
    free of conflicts!!!

  46. Al

    It’s not ‘controversial’. It is just plain dumb.

  47. Caroline Louise

    Umm…according to the polls Obama got 98% in some states…

    But then since 2000 few people believe the US elections aren’t rigged.

  48. Caroline Louise

    Well, you said that 18 days ago, when the western propaganda machine was frantically trying to make us all believe there were no Nazis in Kiev. They had to give that up now of course, because the evidence became just too overwhelming.

    So, what’s your view now, Jim? Still want to claim there are no Nazis in Kiev?

    Svoboda. Four posts in the junta government. Leader runs the Joseph Goebbels Foundation. Founder was Stepan Bandera. Their policy is to remove all Jews and Slavs and Tatars from Ukraine asap. Are these guys Nazis, or not?

    Right Sector. Currently condemned by Israeli MPs for antisemitism, banned by the EU for racism, accused of defacing synagogues and a Holocaust memorial. Are these guys Nazis or not?

    You’re either a dupe of western propaganda, or you are propagandising. Either way you need to stop and think what you are doing. The Nazis in Kiev are real, dangerous and currently fairly out of control. The US/EU policy of ignoring this while distracting everyone with bogus claims of Russian aggression is incredibly irresponsible and threatens world peace.

Leave a Reply