0 9 min 6 mths


The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the Western media are playing along.

The British newspaper “Guardian” is one of the few Western media outlets that have maintained balance and objectivity when it comes to reporting. Her centuries-old motto is, “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred,” which implies “honesty, cleanliness, courage, fairness, sense of duty to the reader and the community,” and by and large she adheres to this admirable maxim .

It was therefore surprising and unsettling to read a headline on December 29 that said, “Biden Talks to Putin Amid Russia’s Increased Presence in Ukraine,” as, three days earlier, France 24 had reported that 10,000 Russians had reported Soldiers had completed their winter military exercises and were returning to their bases. Even Fox News ran an article mentioning the troop movements, but highlighting an appearance by former Secretary of State Pompeo, who warned that “Vladimir Putin will continue to pressurize the US because of weak leadership.”

The Washington Post made no mention of routine troop transfers, although the New York Times, on Dec. 28, admitted in its report on the upcoming US-Russia talks that “the announcement came shortly after Russia announced that 10,000 combat- and special forces conducting exercises would return to their barracks. But this move took place some distance from Ukraine… ”. On the same day, Britain’s Daily Mail reported that “the Pentagon has ordered the USS Harry S. Truman and its aircraft carrier group to remain in the Mediterranean as tensions mount in Ukraine and Russian forces remain on the Ukrainian border … Defense Secretary Lloyd’s Austin-approved deployment plan change is designed to reassure European allies of US commitment to regional security, an official told the newspaper, but without addressing ongoing Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s eastern border. “

Unsurprisingly, the Mail elaborated on the “ongoing military build-up” by telling its readers, among other things, that “Russia has concentrated 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border, raising fears of an invasion” – and then adding that “However, Putin withdrew 10,000 troops before the announced talks”.

It is disappointing that the mainstream Western media is reluctant to mention anything positive about Russia. Certainly the relocation of 10,000 soldiers was planned well in advance and well known to the Western intelligence services, whose activities are intense around Russia’s borders (the US carried out electronic warfare operations with E-8 aircraft on December 27 and 29) but it is still a significant message that should be made known to the public. However, instead of noting positive developments, newspapers like the Post are focusing on things that weaken or even destroy the Western view that Russia wants peace and is right to oppose the US-NATO military alliance approaching its borders .

The US magazine Stars and Stripes reported on December 18 that NATO’s commander-in-chief and head of the US European command, General Tod Wolters, had said that he wanted to “reinforce NATO’s eastern flank with multinational combat troops in Romania and Bulgaria because he was defending himself Worries about Russia’s movements in Ukraine ”. NATO Headquarters in Brussels did not directly respond to Wolters’ suggestion when asked about it, and it appears that the plan is still under discussion, although, as Stripes pointed out, “the addition of battlegroups in Romania and Bulgaria is in line with the recent efforts of NATO to strengthen its position around the Black Sea, a strategic waterway on which Russia is increasingly confident…. Most of NATO’s efforts since 2014 have focused on strengthening defenses in the Baltic States and Poland, where US forces lead a combat group just 50 miles from the Russian military exclave of Kaliningrad. “

It is evident that the United States considers itself entitled, and even obliged, to station battle groups fifty miles from the Russian border, while publicly condemning the Moscow government for conducting military exercises on its own territory. NATO Headquarters describes the battle groups in its “advanced presence in the eastern part of the Alliance” as “robust and combat-ready forces” that can be “rapidly reinforced by additional forces and capabilities” in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

NATO’s “increased forward presence” on Russia’s borders runs counter to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which, as the independent and objective Arms Control Association found, should prevent Russia and NATO from “amassing forces for a lightning war offensive” , and the restrictions on the permanent positioning of armed forces outside the Alliance. US-NATO solved this problem by rotating its battle groups, sticking to the text, if not the spirit of the treaty, which sums up the policy of confrontation that has long been the leitmotif of the alliance between the Pentagon and Brussels .

In its coverage of the December 30th Putin-Biden talks, the New York Times noted that “Mr. Putin has repeatedly accused the United States and NATO countries of planting offensive weapons near Russian borders and thereby security of the country, “which apparently” confused “US officials who – according to the Times – thought it may have been referring to Javelin anti-tank weapons” and other small ammunition “sold to Ukraine by US manufacturers. But the NYT said it had “become increasingly clear” that Moscow meant nuclear missiles “that are banned by a treaty that Moscow violated for several years and that President Trump has given up”. Then the Times tried to make things a little clearer by referring to Washington policies as described by Jake Sullivan, the president’s assistant on national security.

Sullivan gave a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations on December 17, asking him a question about US offensive weapons on Russia’s borders. His answer should be extremely understandable, stating that “at this moment we are continuing to provide defensive aid to Ukraine”. Another package of this aid arrived just last week. More will follow. We have a pipeline. The question of absorption capacity arises. But we are constantly checking Ukraine’s additional needs and putting together possible packages. And these packages are actively being considered. On the other hand, Mr Sullivan appeared unsure about the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons, apparently assuming that the former are invariably used by the US and its military allies, while the latter are exclusively used by those against whom the defensive category is directed.

Then he said, “This is not about saying yes or no to any particular piece of equipment or a particular package. We’re laying a pipeline. As we do this, we look at other things that we can postpone, and then more, and so on. So that’s the way we look at defense aid. And we are not including or not including any particular point of view on Russia’s position in our calculations. It is about our assessment of the needs, the pipeline and the steps that are currently being taken to provide assistance. This is how we approach this question. “

This somewhat opaque statement is another arrow in the quiver of Western disinformation with regard to the military armament of the US and NATO, the “increased forward presence” along the Russian borders in NATO countries and particularly in Ukraine, which have not yet formed a formal alliance with The United States, although, as CNN informed us on December 8th, “in November about 150 members of Task Force Gator of the Florida National Guard were deployed to Ukraine as part of the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine …”. The Pentagon did not disclose how many special forces were in Ukraine because it was about operational security. “

Offensive planning is often disguised in the media with reference to “operational security”, just as offensive weapons are suddenly converted into “protective systems” when their obvious purpose can no longer be concealed. These are only parts of the general propaganda campaign. The US-NATO military alliance is preparing for war, and the Western media is playing its game.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.