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.)

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending