Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

For sale on Amazon: latest edition of CIA anti-Russia propaganda

The Isikoff-Corn book might as well have been written for the CIA

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

889 Views

Michael Isikoff and David Corn lie so many times in their new book, so that the motive would be puzzling, except that it’s really not, because they lie in accord with the U.S. Government’s own demonstrable lies, which happen also to be basic to today’s CIA — so, Isikoff-Corn’s propagandistic agenda, at least, is clear and consistent — they lie for a clearly identifiable propagandistic purpose, the U.S. Government’s purpose, as will be documented here.

Their book is titled RUSSIAN ROULETTE: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. It was published on March 13th, and already (as of this writing) has 541 customer reviews at Amazon, with the average customer-review rating being 4.8 out of 5 stars — almost as favorable as can possibly be. This book will be reviewed here.

There is lots of precedent for the CIA controlling the press in America, starting with the establishment of the CIA’s operation Mockingbird in 1948, which continues to this day. One illustrative example (Udo Ulfkotte) of the CIA’s control over the media will be briefly cited, before getting to the main topic, the Isikoff-Corn book.

Udo Ulfkotte was a prominent German journalist who reported, and finally became an editor, for the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung, during the 17 years from 1986 through 2003, and who then seems to have become increasingly alienated from the journalistic profession, and consumed by moral pangs about his having been secretly a German propaganda-agent of the U.S. CIA, as he subsequently reported in his confessional book, which is banned in the U.S., and which was titled Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News. (Russian TV interviewed him about it in English.)

The Isikoff-Corn book might as well have been written for the CIA, like Ulfkotte used to do, but at least Isikoff-Corn have done it (if they did — there could be other reasons why they lie consistently in accord with the U.S. Government’s lies) for their own nation’s ‘intelligence’ service, and they seem (unlike Ulfkotte) to be quite shameless in the lies that they indubitably tell. This review will cover just the most consequential of their lies.

The biggest single issue that Isikoff-Corn lie about is the one for which the economic sanctions have been placed against Russia, ever since 2014 — it precipitated the start of ’the new Cold War’ — the events that have been cited also to ‘justify’ the massing now of over 100,000 U.S. and other NATO troops and tanks and other weapons onto and near Russia’s border, prepared to invade. (It’s sort of like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis now, but even more extreme, and in reverse: U.S. now placing missiles on Russia’s border.) That alleged issue, the start of the revived Cold War, is Ukraine, and is Russia’s alleged ‘aggression’ against Ukraine and ‘seizure’ of Crimea. So, these are very consequential lies, which are essential to the restoration, and now even the escalation, of the Cold War.

On page 46, Isikoff-Corn write about a particularly seminal event that occurred on 27 January 2014 and which was uploaded to youtube on 4 February 2014. This key event was a phone call, which occurred 24 days before Ukraine’s President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown on February 20th, and it was 30 days before the new person to head Ukraine’s Government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, became officially appointed to rule the country.

This phone-conversation wasn’t between Ukrainians, however; it was between two U.S. Government officials — between Victoria Nuland, who was U.S. President Barack Obama’s agent controlling U.S. Government policy on Ukraine, and Geoffrey Pyatt, who was Obama’s U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine: she was here giving Pyatt instructions. She told Pyatt not to appoint Vitally Klitschko, the EU’s favorite, to that function, but instead Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and, here is that, the most crucial part of this historically crucial phone-conversation:

Nuland: … Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience the governing experience; he’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tiahnybok [an admirerer of Hitler] on the outside; he [Yats] needs to be talking to them four times a week you know. I just think Klitch going in, he’s going to be, at that level, working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah [you’re right], no [I was wrong to think that Klitschko should become the new ruler], I think that’s right. Ok. Good.

Then, she referred in the call, to her agent (just like she was Obama’s agent), Jeff Feltman, who had been assigned to persuade the U.N.’s Ban ki-Moon and his envoy handling Ukraine, Holland’s former Ambassador to Ukraine, Robert Serry, to go along with the U.S., in this context:

Nuland: I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry; did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: Ok. He’s now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue it, and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Feltman chose Serry to become appointed on 5 March 2014 by Ban ki-Moon to “mediate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” (Whether Putin ever knew that the U.N.’s ‘mediator’ had been chosen by Obama’s people, is unknown.)

On page 46, is the only Isikoff-Corn passage which refers to this crucial conversation; and here it is, so that the Isikoff-Corn version can be compared against the documented one, just presented here:
Nuland and Pyatt were working with the Ukrainian opposition to create a coalition government that would include Yanukovych and opposition leaders. On this call, the two Americans candidly discussed the merits of various oppsition leaders who could join the coalition. They also expressed frustration that the European Union was not doing more to help end the crisis. ‘Fuck the EU,’ Nuland told the Ambassador.”

That’s all the book provides about it.

Here was the youtube that was uploaded on 4 February 2014, of this Nuland-Pyatt phone call, so that you can hear it for yourself, and judge whether that, the Isikoff-Corn account, was an honest summary of it; or whether, in fact, they were covering-up the fact that this conversation was between two U.S. operatives planning a coup, which occurred less than a month later, and which installed the coup-plotters’ chosen person to rule Ukraine after the coup. If Isikoff-Corn are not CIA agents, or at least CIA assets (paid by the CIA or on behalf of the CIA but not formally agents or “officers” of the CIA), then why would they misrepresent this absolutely crucial piece of historical evidence?

On page 48, Isikoff-Corn refer to events occurring during the coup as “demonstrators being gunned down by government [Yanukovich’s] snipers.” Though that is the CIA-U.S.-and-alied official line on that, it has been amply disproven, and the first instance when it was, is this phone conversation which occurred on 26 February 2014 when the coup culminated and the foreign-affairs chief of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, was confidentially informed by her investigator, Urmas Paet, regarding his findings as to what had been the cause of the murders and other violence that brought down the Ukrainian Government of President Viktor Yanukovych — whether it was Yanukovych himself, or the people who had opposed Yanukovych and who had supported Ukraine’s joining the EU (which Yanukovych had finally decided not to do).

This Ashton-Paet conversation makes absolutely clear that the EU had not participated in bringing down Yanukovych and was shocked to learn that Yanukovych had not been behind the violence on that historic occasion, which had occurred only days prior to that conversation.

On page 50, appears: “Russian forces … grabbed the Black Sea port of Sevastopol” in Crimea, but that statement too is a lie. Russia had had that port and all of Crimea itself, ever since 1783; they didn’t “grab” it; and only as recently as 1954 did the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, and even U.S-and-allied polls of Crimeans continued to show that the vast majority of Crimeans still, despite what the Soviet dictator did in 1954, considered themselves to be Russians and not Ukrainians, and even after the referendum on 16 March 2014 when Crimeans voted over 90% to be restored to Russia, all evidence is that Crimeans want to remain as Russians and not at all be represented by Ukraine’s Government.

The Soviet dictator, Nikita Khrushchev, never cared what the residents of Crimea wanted, and neither did Barack Obama, but Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, did, and does. Furthermore, even under the Khrushchev-installed regimen in Crimea, Russia’s lease on Sebastopol had been extended in 2010 to expire in 2042 at the very earliest; and, so, even with Crimea as being a Ukrainian region, it’s a lie to say, as Isikoff-Corn do, “Russian forces … grabbed the Black Sea port of Sevastopol.”

Also on page 50 they state: “Putin announced Crimea’s formal annexation into the Russian Federation — the first seizure of land from another nation in Europe since the end of World War II,” and they totally ignore that the U.S. regime had seized Ukraine from its existing neutrality, and turned it rabidly pro-nazi and anti-Russian; it wasn’t Putin who ‘seized’ Crimea; it was Obama, who had seized Ukraine.

Then, on page 181, they employ the phrase “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Here’s the reality, which was documented in this 19 November 2017 Italian video: some of the U.S-hired 2014 mercenaries themselves, years later, and entirely voluntarily, if not proudly, admitted that they had been hired for the job; and these snipers were from the nation of Georgia and were being paid by Mikheil Saakashvili, upon whom Washington had been relying during the 2008 color-‘revolution’ in Georgia, but whom America’s stooge President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, appointed to be the governor of the rebellious region of Odessa in Ukraine, and Saakashvili then became a favorite of Ukraine’s two nazi parties, to replace Poroshenko; so, Poroshenko fired him.

The U.S. regime is one of only two or three governments in the entire world that stands up, and continues to stand up, at the U.N. for nazis, and the ‘journalism’ and ‘history’ that’s written by the likes of Isikoff and of Corn is in that traditional ideological vein, of propaganda.

Even before that, on 15 February 2015, German state television had documented that definitely there were bullets from Yanukovych’s opponents that were found in the corpses of demonstrators and of police, but that only maybe there were bullets also from Yanukovych’s side. None of the actual evidence clearly implicates anyone but Obama and his people (such as Saakashvili).

If there were others (snipers on Yanukovych’s side), then the evidence for that has been, and remains, lacking — even though the regime that Obama installed in Ukraine has controlled Ukraine’s Government since that time and can therefore reasonably be presumed to be overwhelmingly predisposed to find such evidence.

For a fuller account of how Obama seized Ukraine, see this. (However, when in 2016 Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani, at The Intercept, revealed that NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, Philip Breedlove, with help from Wesley Clark and others, had tried to force Obama to go directly to war against Russia over the Ukraine issue, the 216 reader-comments were as condemnatory against Obama for his having refused to be quite that extreme, as they were against Breedlove for his persistently trying to provoke his own Commander-in-Chief into World War III. Those readers, unfortunately, didn’t know the truth, which is documented here — they were just confused.)

 

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

Latest

EU and Japan ink free trade deal representing over 30% of global GDP

The free trade agreement represents a victory for free trade in the face of growing protectionism

Published

on

In a bid to preserve free trade and strengthen their trade partnership, the European Union and Japan have finished a free trade zone agreement that has been sitting in the pipeline for years.

The present global economic outlook provided the needed spur to action to get the ball rolling again and now it has finally reached the end zone and scored another point for free and open trade against the growing influence of protectionism, which has been creeping up with alarming rapidity and far reaching consequences in recent months.

Under the deal, Japan will scrap tariffs on some 94% of goods imported from Europe and the EU in turn is canning 99% of tariffs on Japanese goods.

Between the European Union and Japan, the trade deal impacts about 37% of the world’s GDP, making it one of the largest and impactful of such agreements.

The Japan Times reports:

Top European Union leaders and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed an economic partnership agreement Tuesday in Tokyo, a pact that will create a massive free trade zone accounting for 37 percent of the world’s trade by value.

European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hastily arranged their visit to Tokyo after Abe was forced to abruptly cancel plans to attend a July 11 signing ceremony in Brussels in the aftermath of flooding and mudslides in western Japan.

Japanese officials said the signing is particularly important to counter intensifying protectionism worldwide triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Negotiations on the pact between Japan and the EU, which started in 2013, had stagnated for a time but regained momentum after Trump took office in January 2017.

“We are sending a clear message that we stand together against protectionism,” Tusk said at a joint news conference with Abe after they signed the agreement.

“The relationship between the EU and Japan has never been stronger. Geographically we are far apart, but politically and economically we could be hardly any closer,” Tusk said. “I’m proud today we are taking our strategic partnership to a new level.”

Tusk stressed that the EU and Japan are partners sharing the same basic values, such as liberal democracy, human rights and rule-based order.

Abe also emphasized the importance of free and fair trade.

“Right now, concerns are rising over protectionism all around the world. We are sending out a message emphasizing the importance of a trade system based on free and fair rules,” he said.

The pact will create a free trade bloc accounting for roughly 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. Japan and the EU hope to have the agreement, which still needs to be ratified by both parties, come into force by March.

Under the EPA, tariffs on about 99 percent of Japan’s exported goods to the EU will eventually be eliminated, while duties on 94 percent of EU’s exported items to Japan will be abolished, according to the Foreign Ministry.

The EPA will eliminate duties of 10 percent on Japan’s auto exports to the EU seven years after the pact takes effect. The current 15 percent duties on wine imports from the EU will be eliminated immediately, while those on cheese, pork and beef will be sharply cut.

In total, the EPA will push up domestic GDP by 1 percent, or ¥5 trillion a year, and create 290,000 new jobs nationwide, according to the government.

“The world is now facing raging waves of protectionism. So the signing ceremony at this time is particularly meaningful,” a senior Foreign Ministry official said earlier this month on condition of anonymity.

“The impact for Japan is big,” the official said.

Fukunari Kimura, an economics professor at Keio University, said the EU is now trying to accelerate the ratification process.

“This is a repercussion of President Trump’s policies. They will try to ratify it before Brexit in March of next year,” he said in an interview with The Japan Times last week.

But the deal has raised concerns among some domestic farmers, in particular those from Hokkaido, the country’s major dairy producer.

According to an estimate by the Hokkaido Prefectural Government, the EPA will cut national production in the agriculture, fishery and forestry industries by up to ¥114.3 billion a year, with Hokkaido accounting for 34 percent of the predicted losses.

“The sustainable development of the prefecture’s agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries is our top priority. We need to make efforts to raise our international competitiveness,” Hokkaido Gov. Harumi Takahashi said during a news conference July 10.

Japan and the EU had reached a basic agreement on the EPA in December.

Tokyo also led negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade pact after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in January 2017.

In March, 11 countries including Japan signed the so-called TPP11, or a revised TPP pact that does not include the U.S.

“The Japan-EU EPA is another important step for Japan to strengthen its trade relationship with key trading partners, and demonstrate that trade liberalization is alive and well, even if the United States is taking a different stance,” wrote Wendy Cutler, a former acting deputy U.S. Trade Representative, in an email sent to The Japan Times last week.

“The EU deal also reduces Japanese dependence on the U.S. market and thus increases its leverage to resist unreasonable trade demands by the United States,” she wrote.

According to the Foreign Ministry, the EU, which accounts for 22 percent of the world’s GDP, was the destination for 11.4 percent of Japanese exports in 2016. In the same year, the figure for the U.S. was 20.2 percent and 17.7 percent for China.

In 2016, Japan’s exports to the EU totaled ¥8 trillion, while reciprocal trade was ¥8.2 trillion.

The deal provides tariff relief for both parties and can improve the quantity of trade between them, expand the economy and create many jobs. It also helps to further diversify their trade portfolios in order to mitigate the prospect of a single global trade partner wielding too much influence, which in turn provides a certain amount of cover from any adverse actions or demands from a single actor. In this way, current trade dependencies can be reduced and free and diversified trade is further bolstered.

Continue Reading

Latest

The man behind Ukraine coup is now turning Greece against Russia (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 57.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

On July 11, Greece said it would expel two Russian diplomats and barred the entry of two others.

The Duran reported that the formal reason is alleged meddling in an attempt to foment opposition to the “historic” name deal between Athens and Skopje paving the way for Macedonia’s NATO membership. Moscow said it would respond in kind.

Nothing like this ever happened before. The relations between the two countries have traditionally been warm. This year Moscow and Athens mark the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Hellenic Republic. They have signed over 50 treaties and agreements.

Greek news daily, Kathimerini says the relationship started to gradually worsen behind the scenes about a couple of years ago. What happened back then? Geoffrey Pyatt assumed office as US Ambassador to Greece. Before the assignment he had served as ambassador to Ukraine in 2013-2016 at the time of Euromaidan – the events the US took active part in. He almost openly contributed into the Russia-Ukraine rift. Now it’s the turn of Greece. The ambassador has already warned Athens about the “malign influence of Russia”. He remains true to himself.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris connect the dots between the Ukraine coup and Greece’s recent row with Russia, and the man who is in the middle of it all, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Via Sputnik News

Actions similar to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Greece do not remain without consequences, said spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova.

“We have an understanding that the people of Greece should communicate with their Russian partners, and not suffer from dirty provocations, into which, unfortunately, Athens was dragged,” Zakharova said at a briefing.

“Unfortunately, of course, we are talking about politics. Such things do not remain without consequences, do not disappear without a trace. Of course, unfortunately, all this darkens bilateral relations, without introducing any constructive principle,” she added.

On July 11, the Greek Kathimerini newspaper reported that Athens had decided to expel two Russian diplomats and ban two more from entering the country over illegal actions that threatened the country’s national security. The publication claimed that the diplomats attempted to intervene in a domestic issue, namely the changing of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to the Republic of North Macedonia, the agreement for which was brokered by Skopje and Athens last month.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has vowed to give a mirror response to Greece’s move.

Continue Reading

Latest

Russia just DUMPED $80 billion in US debt

The US Treasury published a report naming those countries that are the largest holders of US bonds. The list includes 33 countries, and for the first time Russia is no longer in it.

Published

on

Russia has stopped “inching towards de-dollarization” as I wrote about on July 3rd, and has now energetically walked out of the list of largest holders of US government bonds, hence this update. For the two months ending in May 2018, Moscow has offloaded more than $80 billion in US Government debt obligations.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The $30 billion “minimum” listing Rubicon has been crossed by Russia.

As of the end of May, Russia had bonds worth only $ 14.9 billion. For comparison: in April, Russia was on the Treasury list with bonds totaling $48.7 billion. Even then it was offloading US$ debt securities as Russia owned in March over $96 billion. At the end of 2017, Russia had US treasury securities worth $102.2 billion. It is anyones guess what Russia will own when the June and July figures are released in August and September – probably less than today.

This simply serves as a confirmation that Russia is steadfastly following a conservative policy of risk diversification in several areas such as financial, economic, and geopolitical. The US public debt and spend is increasingly viewed as a heightened risk area, deserving sober assessment.

So where have all the dollars gone? The total reserves of the Russian Central Bank have not changed and remain at approximately the equivalent of $ 457 billion, so what we are seeing is a shift of assets to other central banks, other asset classes, just not US$ government bonds.

During the same time (April-May) as this US$ shift happened, the Russian Central Bank bought more than 1 million troy ounces of gold in 60 days, and continues.

For comparison sake, the maximum Russia investment in US public debt was in October 2010 totaling $176.3 billion. Today it is $14.9 billion.

The largest holders of US government bonds as of May are China ($ 1,183.1 billion), Japan ($ 1048.8 billion), Ireland ($ 301 billion), Brazil ($ 299.2 billion), Great Britain ($ 265 billion).

Using the similar conservative metrics that the Russian Central Bank has been rather successfully applying through this geopolitically and economically challenging period with the US and the US Dollar, it may not stretch the imagination too much that other countries such as China may eventually follow suit. Who will finance the debt/spend then?

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement
Advertisements
Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!

The Duran Newsletter

Trending