RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parry writes: "The New York Times - much as it did when it was falsely reporting breathlessly about 'aluminum tubes' for Iraq's non-existent nuclear weapons program - continues to promote U.S. government propaganda about Ukraine as fact and dismisses any rational assessment of the situation as crazy.

Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin. (photo: Alexei Nikolsky/AP)
Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin. (photo: Alexei Nikolsky/AP)

The Putin-Did-It Conspiracy Theory

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

15 February 15


he original falsehood behind the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them against America either directly or by giving them to al-Qaeda. The opening lie about the Ukraine crisis was that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the conflict as part of some Hitlerian plan to conquer much of Europe.

Yet, while the Hussein-WMD claim was hard for the common citizen to assess because it was supposedly supported by U.S. intelligence information that was kept secret, the Putin-Ukraine lie collapses under the most cursory examination based simply of what’s publicly known and what makes sense.

Nevertheless, the New York Times – much as it did when it was falsely reporting breathlessly about “aluminum tubes” for Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons program – continues to promote U.S. government propaganda about Ukraine as fact and dismisses any rational assessment of the situation as crazy.

On Friday, the Times concluded its lead editorial with the assertion that: “What remains incontrovertible is that Ukraine is Mr. Putin’s war.” But the point is anything but “incontrovertible.” Indeed, the crisis was most certainly not instigated by Putin.

The actually “incontrovertible” facts about the Ukraine crisis are these: The destabilization of President Viktor Yanukovych’s elected government began in November 2013 when Yanukovych balked at a proposed association agreement promoted by the European Union. He sought more time after the sticker shock of learning from Kiev economic experts that the deal would cost Ukraine $160 billion in lost revenue by cutting trade with Russia.

It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported. Putin’s only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act.

Yanukovych’s decision to postpone action on the EU association prompted angry demonstrations in Kiev’s Maidan square, largely from western Ukrainians who were hoping for visa-free travel to the EU and other benefits from closer ties. Putin had no role in those protests – and it’s insane to think that he did.

In February 2014, the protests grew more and more violent as neo-Nazi and other militias organized in the western city of Lviv and these 100-man units known as “sotins” were dispatched daily to provide the muscle for the anti-Yanukovych uprising that was taking shape. It is frankly nutty to suggest that Putin was organizing these militias. [See’s “When Is a Putsch a Putsch.”]

Evidence of Coup Plotting

By contrast, there is substantial evidence that senior U.S. officials were pushing for a “regime change” in Kiev, including an intercepted phone call and various public statements.

In December 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations.” In early February, she discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine should be. “Yats is the guy,” she declared, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [See’s “Who’s Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?”]

The Maidan uprising gained momentum on Feb. 20, 2014, when snipers around the square opened fire on police and protesters touching off a violent clash that left scores of people dead, both police and protesters. After the sniper fire and a police retreat — carrying their wounded — the demonstrators surged forward and some police apparently reacted with return fire of their own.

But the growing evidence indicates that the initial sniper fire originated from locations controlled by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan’s neo-Nazi “self-defense” commandant Andriy Parubiy. Though the current Ukrainian government has dragged its feet on an investigation, independent field reports, including a new one from BBC, indicate that the snipers were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych government as was widely reported in the U.S. media a year ago.

The worsening violence led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European countries. He accepted reduced powers and agreed to early elections so he could be voted out of office. Yet, rather than permit that political settlement to go forward, neo-Nazis and other Maidan forces overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.

The U.S. State Department quickly deemed this coup regime “legitimate” and Nuland’s choice, Yatsenyuk, emerged as Prime Minister, with Parubiy put in charge of national security.

In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other extremists who executed the coup.

A Nutty Conspiracy Theory

But there is zero evidence that Putin engineered these events. There is no evidence that he got Merkel and the EU to overplay their hand; no evidence that he organized the neo-Nazi militias in Lviv; no evidence that he manipulated U.S. officials to manipulate the “regime change” behind the scenes; no evidence that he ordered the Maidan militants to attack.

Is the New York Times really suggesting that Putin pulled the strings on the likes of Merkel and Nuland, secretly organized neo-Nazi brigades, and ruthlessly deployed these thugs to Kiev to provoke violence and overthrow Yanukovych, all while pretending to try to save Yanukovych’s government – all so Putin could advance some dastardly plot to conquer Europe?

The Times often makes fun of “conspiracy theorists,” but the Times’ narrative is something that would make even the most dedicated “conspiracy theorist” blush. Yet, the Times not only asserts this crazy conspiracy theory but calls it “incontrovertible.”

Beyond the lack of evidence to support this conspiracy theory, there is no rational motive for Putin to have done what the Times claims that he did.

In the actual chronology of event, Putin was preoccupied with the Winter Olympics in Sochi when the Ukraine crisis took its turn for the worst a year ago. He was fearful that the Olympics would be marred by Chechen or other terrorism and thus was personally overseeing security.

Putin had spent some $40 billion on making the Olympics a glamorous show to introduce the new Russia to the world as a country ready to join the West. I’m told that he was very proud of Russia’s position in the G-8 and felt he had built a constructive relationship with President Barack Obama by helping him resolve crises in Syria and Iran in 2013.

The last thing Putin wanted to do was provoke a crisis in Ukraine. Nor is there any intelligence that he had designs on the Baltic States, as the conspiracy theory contends.

However, when a right-wing regime seized power in a violent coup in Ukraine on Russia’s border and then took provocative actions against Ukraine’s ethnic Russians, Putin responded to calls from Crimea – both from its parliament and a referendum – to take the peninsula back into Russia.

Putin also feared that the new powers in Kiev might give the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol to NATO with its nuclear-armed submarines. In other words, as much as the New York Times has bandied about claims of a Russian “invasion” of Crimea, the Crimeans requested Russia’s intervention and up to 25,000 Russian troops were already there in the agreement with Ukraine over the naval base.

Reactor, Not Instigator

But the key point is that Putin was reacting to the Ukraine crisis, not instigating it. As even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained to Der Spiegel, “The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.”

Kissinger added, “Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine.”

In this case, Kissinger is clearly right. It never made any sense for Putin to provoke the Ukraine crisis. Yet, that became the lie upon which the United States has built its increasingly aggressive policies over the past year, with politicians of all stripes now shouting that America must stand up to the madman Putin and “Russian aggression.”

This is a dangerous “group think” for a number of reasons, not the least the disturbing fact that both the United States and Russia have lots of nuclear weapons. On a less existential level, the “Putin-is-Hitler” analogy has prompted a major miscalculation on the right approach for the Obama administration to take vis a vis Putin.

As Harvard Professor Stephen M. Walt has noted, the most effective response to a crisis is different if a foreign leader is an aggressor on the march or if the leader feels cornered. The former calls for a “deterrence model,” i.e., a tough reaction. But a tough response in the latter case will only make the beleaguered leader more belligerent like a cornered animal, thus spinning the crisis into more dangerous territory under what’s known as the “spiral model.”

“When insecurity is the taproot of a state’s revisionist actions, making threats just makes the situation worse,” Walt wrote. “When the ‘spiral model’ applies, the proper response is a diplomatic process of accommodation and appeasement (yes, appeasement) to allay the insecure state’s concerns.” [See’s “‘Realists’ Warn Against Ukraine Escalation.”]

Perhaps the new ceasefire agreement in Minsk – spearheaded by German Chancellor Merkel – will finally help defuse the crisis, with the legitimate concerns of the various sides being taken into account rationally rather than letting the past year’s hysteria continue to control events.

But the Times’ editorial doesn’t give much reason for hope that America’s upside-down “group think” has righted itself in any meaningful way. In the mainstream media’s latest repeat of the Iraq-WMD fiasco, the Times and virtually every other major news outlet remain committed to a dangerous misreading of the facts about Ukraine.

And anyone who dares point out the real history of the crisis is immediately shouted down with the anti-intellectual riposte: “Putin apologist!” — just as in 2002-2003, when anyone who doubted the certainty about Iraq’s WMD was a “Saddam apologist.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+59 # polfrosch 2015-02-15 16:04
The New York Times - didn´t it´s chief editor recently apologize and admitted they didn´t do their job after 911?

So much for that. Oops, they did it again. And again. And in 10 years they will apologize again. (One could also say: oops, they didn´t do it again=their job)

That is: if the NYT still exist in 10 years. If not, the USA has lost a production site of well written texts with investigative drive inversely proportional to the importance of the issue covered.

There will be a substitute, of course.

Ukraine is another example US foreign policy is best described as a sequence of black operations, covered by a mountain of lies, distributed to the public by a flock of useful idiot journalists guided by a few willing helpers.

Once in a while a single brave journalist unearths evidence for an operation and is ridiculed as conspiracy theorist, loosing his/her existence or dying a strange death
- while the media caravan moves on chatting about 10 celebrity dress mishap fotos you won´t believe
- while the US hydra commits 5 new crimes of similar nature.

From Iran to Guatemala to Honduras to Kuba to Chile to El Salvador to Sweden to Panama to Iraq to Georgia to Libya to Syria to Ukraine, with Venezuela and pacific countries neighbouring China to come.

Lies, lies, so many lies.
Regarding Ukraine, look at this:
+23 # dquandle 2015-02-16 02:30
Quite the contrary; The Times did its job excellently. It exists to drum up support for US imperial war and invasion and the desires of the plutocracy, and it did just that, with tremendous success. They are now attempting it again, with seemingly, and appallingly, similar success. The main difference being that the nation they are setting up as the object of war, is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and a leader who is not anywhere as likely to be pushed around by the bullying tactics of Washington. The stunning and frightful schemes of the Obama regime and its neocon colluders are mind bending in their danger, unerringly plumbing the abysses of stupidity.
+2 # Capn Canard 2015-02-17 21:14
Indeed. This is all happening as the American empire is crashing and burning. Watch for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and/or Indonesia to replace the U.S.
+49 # Activista 2015-02-15 20:55
"Paul – a 79-year-old retired doctor who spent nearly three decades in the US Congress representing the state of Texas – reiterated his previous statements, noting that what happened in Ukraine last year was a “coup” that was planned by “NATO, EU” and western Ukrainians. “One thing for sure that we do know, is we [US] had the conversations between our State Department and our ambassador before the coup – who will we put in place. And they planned part of the coup.”
Ukraine is about NATO survival ... and military-indust rial complex loosing another market for US weapons.
+24 # pietheyn07 2015-02-16 05:21
Without a manufactured conflict with Russia, there is little need for NATO. Activista, your comments are spot on.
+4 # TomThumb 2015-02-18 00:03
Since the Kosovo war, I wondered what was the purpose of NATO. Its original stated purpose collapsed with Soviet communism. Why should the US support an alliance whose main purpose is the expansion of the European Union. There is the odd case where they lend some international primature to our invasions, such as in Afghanistan, or carry our water, such as in Libya.
Several years ago, Chomsky wrote that the purpose of Nato is to maintain US control over Europe, and I have since come to believe that he is right. The Europeans can form any union they like, but so long as the US controls their armed forces, they control them. This has been so since the end of WWII. Tommy Rimes
+2 # RnR 2015-02-17 19:32
And don't forget the sorrow that will envelope Monsanto and Cargill should "the breadbasket of Europe" slip from their skeletal, greasy, infected fingers. You know they can't make an honest living.
+25 # wrknight 2015-02-16 00:00
We know whose war this really is. Instead of calling it Putin's war, we should call it Vickie's war.
+6 # Radscal 2015-02-16 15:52
Indeed, Ms. Nuland was our "boots on the ground" for this "regime change.

I have one consistent gripe with Parry:
“Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover…”

Parry has done some of the best analysis of the situation in Ukraine (and a lifetime, remarkable oeuvre of investigative journalism), but he continues to cherish belief that “holdover” neocons somehow fooled Obama into supporting their agenda.

Obama APPOINTED Nuland, who had previously worked in the Bush II and Clinton I Administrations , but was not “held over” when Obama took office.
+22 # wantrealdemocracy 2015-02-16 00:10
Day after day we hear that the Russians have moved tanks and rocket launchers and troops into Ukraine. Wonder why they never show us any pictures of this? Maybe because it's another lie?
-4 # bmiluski 2015-02-17 09:50
Maybe you're reading the wrong papers.
+6 # dascher 2015-02-17 10:25
Quoting bmiluski:
Maybe you're reading the wrong papers.

What papers have published credible evidence of russian tanks and heavy weapons pouring into Ukraine? i j\nope youare nkt refEring to the discredited propaganda fotos from the western ukranians showing images thatbturned out to have actually been taken in Russia.
+5 # Capn Canard 2015-02-17 21:23
Propaganda? No, it is just American Newz reportings. Like the lone marksman at the school book depository, or those crafty hijackers armed with boxcutters. Gulible Americans will eat this sheet up without objection. It's the magic of American TV. God bless the USA.
-34 # Jaax88 2015-02-16 00:34
Let's assume Parry is right about blaming
the West for causing Putin to strike out
and grab the Crimea (worry about some possible takeover by the West of the Russian navel base at Sevastopol is only speculation and Russia had a formal agreement with Ukraine for long term occupancy of that navel station does not justify Putin's action there). So in this situation there is one wrong by the West, but we have all learned that two wrongs don't make a right. Putin is wrong to support with material and his military the breakaway attempt by the rebels in the Donbass. That is where the Hitlerian comparison has merit as to protect Russians living in border countries. This has a bigger scope than just the Donbass as shown by one justification for the take over and annexation of Crimea. There is the Russia potential threat to the Baltic counties with Russian populations.Par ry is probably not wrong to castigate the NYT, but to try to relieve Putin for his bad conduct and lies is nonsense. I do not think Parry is being completely truthful here.
+14 # caphillprof 2015-02-16 09:51
I wonder how the U.S. would react, even today, if Cuba were to threaten our occupation of Guantanamo?
-4 # bmiluski 2015-02-17 09:52
And I wonder how people would react if we invaded Cuba just as Putin invaded the Crimea?
+1 # Salus Populi 2015-02-18 19:58
Yes, "invaded" with the 15,000 naval personnel already in Crimea, 96 per cent of the voters of which opted out of staying in Ukraine and facing the tender mercies of the Nazi militias who burned the Odessa trade unionists alive on the day after the international workers' memorial day; the 15,000 stationed there out of up to 25,000 allowed under the existing treaty between Russia and Ukraine, which was not set to expire until 2042, iirc. Some "invasion."

By the way, you *are* aware that from the eighteenth century until 1954, Crimea was administered directly as an integral part of Russia, and was only transferred to the administration of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the then-USSR, by Krushchev as part of a bicentenniel celebration of an important date in Ukraine history, are you not?
+2 # crispy 2015-02-19 04:33
Putin did NOT invade Crimea. The referendum was clear for joining Russia. no-one says it was fraudulent as the American elections are (read Blackbox voting and Code Red).
It is called auto-determinat ion a concept well respected by TRUE democracies but not by you bmiluski (a fascist i suppose)
+3 # GrittedTeeth 2015-02-16 02:10
Oh, the Fifty Shades of the Gray Lady...
+5 # dquandle 2015-02-16 02:31
all of them blood-red
+6 # Douglas Jack 2015-02-16 10:15
GrittedTeeth, RE: GRAY LADY'S NUCLEAR WORLD WAR-3. We need to make it personal so the public will understand. This is part of a series of western oligarch war-crimes against humanity & life on earth.
Victoria Nuland with her "fuck" & "5 billion $ investment", knows what she is part of & who she is working for as does Barack Obama. These Finance-Media-M ilitary-Industr ial-Legislative -Complex shills are willing to destroy life on earth in service to their 'trillionaires' (# seconds in 32,000 years) lords & their bevy of 'billionaires' (# sec. 32 yr.). Billionaire Pierre Omidyar also invested 100s of millions so Ukraine can become the dead center of a nuclear war.
Vladimir Putin has delayed the western oligarchy's anxious attempts at nuclear war through his intervention in Syria, Ukraine etc. Putin missed on saving Libya from the hell the west has created there by bombing the richest African nation back to the stone-age, but one can not imagine the evil which the west is possessed by.
1998 interview with President Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski about arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan before Soviet assistance to the Afghani government. Here's an interview with Brzezinski 1998 Le Nouveau Observateur, translated by David N. Gibbs & William Blum.
+1 # Capn Canard 2015-02-17 21:32
If it weren't so gawdamned sad it would be hilarious. These bumbling idiots just can't stop. I think that our American economic illusion will fall apart and if that happens I believe the Euro-trash are gonna suffer for it as well...

Shhhttt, since it's hard to feel empathy for these sad bastards, I guess I'll be pulling of Putin.
+19 # harleysch 2015-02-16 07:19
It is not Victoria Nuland's war. She serves under President Obama, who in everything he says about Ukraine, backs up Nuland and the neocons, and repeats the lies of the NY Times which Parry has accurately presented.

Obama does not get a pass on this -- on foreign policy, his support of the neo-imperial regime change policies of Rice and Power makes him the responsible party in the web of lies and deceit, in the demonizing of Putin. His spokesman repeatedly have denied the role of neo-Nazis in the Ukraine government, and he has personally -- without ever offering any evidence -- blamed Putin for MH 17, which was designed to enflame the public against Putin.
+9 # indian weaver 2015-02-16 14:23
As for the Malaysian plane shot down over the Ukraine, note that the plane's black box was confiscated by western goons (likely CIA) at the crash site and is now sequestered in the UK, under UK / NATO / USA control. Why would the USA hide the plane's black box forever? Gee, how weird! As I walk along, I wonder ...
-3 # bmiluski 2015-02-17 09:53
Quoting indian weaver:
As for the Malaysian plane shot down over the Ukraine, note that the plane's black box was confiscated by western goons (likely CIA) at the crash site and is now sequestered in the UK, under UK / NATO / USA control. Why would the USA hide the plane's black box forever? Gee, how weird! As I walk along, I wonder ...

And you know this......india n weaver...becaus e??????????
+2 # crispy 2015-02-19 04:38
Bmiluski, HE KNOWS because it is true that GB has had the black boxes for a long time and is NOT releasing any info on them... It helps to follow the news once in awhile or to just look it up online. No conspiracy theory here, Just a strong silence for many month and NO evidence for the US version of the crash...
SORRY Mr ignorant
+11 # Helen Marshall 2015-02-16 11:09
While Ms. Nuland is indeed a neocon, she is not a "holdover." She was promoted in her career by Strobe Talbott, #2 in the State Department under Clinton. She then worked for Dick Cheney, apparently having no problem with his "dark side" policies. Back at State under Hillary Clinton, she was appointed Assistant Secretary for European Affairs - and these posts are certainly vetted with the White House. Her aggressive policies would fit in with Clinton's record. While the Ukraine mess is very definitely of her making, helped by the odious John McCain, there has been more than enough time for Obama to stop their meddling. Obama may not care, or be unable to summon up the willpower to rein her in, but it is very definitely now Obama's war, just as the disasters unfolding elsewhere where his R2P advisors have advocated military action, such as Libya, are his disasters. Putin rescued him from the Syrian disaster that these folks (including Clinton successor John Kerry, who has not been against a war since 1971) were preparing, but Putin can't save him from his neocons now.
+11 # indian weaver 2015-02-16 14:30
After I read this (the above post by Polfrosch is right on), I sent the NY Times an email with this link (in this article) to a recent Der Spiegel article clarifying what is the truth of the Ukraine situation: I included also a link to this article. The editor's email address is: I hope everyone will send the NY Times these links with your comments. I sent an email to the new editor referenced by Polfrosch when he made those statements of apology for their lies about dubya's war. Disgusting propaganda rag is the NY Times anymore, the published version of FOX "News".
+1 # tgemberl 2015-02-16 18:17
"the published version of FOX News"

Wow, that takes exaggeration to a new height. If the NY Times was really "the published version of FOX News," why do you think sending those links would do any good? You must be assuming their values are unlike those of FOX News.
+3 # Helen Marshall 2015-02-16 19:51
Thank you for this excellent source.
+1 # Capn Canard 2015-02-17 21:37
Nice post, the only thing is that all USA media has been completely whorish. 9/11 was our wake up call and the MSM quickly fell in line with the lies. Welcome to the collapse of Empire...
+2 # tgemberl 2015-02-16 18:05
Robert wrote:

"In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other extremists who EXECUTED the coup." (emphasis added)

The word "executed" gives a potentially misleading impression. It implies that the neo-Nazis were actually directed by the EU or some other nefarious entity. As I've said before, in any popular uprising it's impossible to control who gets involved.

I think if you want to explain why the revolution happened, it relates to a quote in the Spiegel article Parry links to, from Jose Manuel Barroso: "Poland and Ukraine had roughly the same gross domestic product when the Berlin Wall fell. Now, Poland's is roughly three times as large."
+1 # cordleycoit 2015-02-16 18:42
Any excuse for war is good enough for our maximum leader. He is a killer by nature and will not be happy until he shed more blood, Vampires trump Zombies. Hillary can have a nice little war all ginned up. To satisfy her blood lust.
-1 # bmiluski 2015-02-17 09:55
-9 # ericlane 2015-02-17 04:32
Robert Perry has a stick up his ass toward the New York Times and what has happened in Ukraine. According to Perry the New York Times doesn't know what it's talking about and the US is completely responsible for what has happened. What crap! Putin the innocent. Putin was just walking his dog and never saw the avalanche coming. Blah, blah, blah. The only one with a real vested interest in destabilizing Ukraine is and was Putin. He saw that Ukraine was turning Westward and he couldn't and won't let that happen. The message has been sent and now Poland is beginning to modernize its military and re-arming not to fight off the US military but because it fears Russian aggression. Can Mr. Perry wrap his brain around this reality? If Putin doesn't stop acting like an elephant in a crystal shop, it will be his actions that lead to horrible consequences.
0 # crispy 2015-02-19 21:13
ericlane you say "The only one with a real vested interest in destabilizing Ukraine is and was Putin.' NOT SO:the previous president was not too interested in joining Europe (starting w accepting financial aide) in FACT, he turned down the small help offered and accepted Putin's instead. That was the end of the NATO-Neocon fascist plan to bring Ukraine into NATO (sooner or later), in violation of the agreement Reagan and Gorbachev made. It was the end of the hope to bring Ukraine inside the EEU. THEN, the Neo-cons and Obama, Nuland decided regime change was in order and overthrew the legitimate president of Ukraine via protesters and snipers.
Putin was completely inactive until the threat at HIS door became unbearable (think of the Russians bringing missiles to Cuba for example... how would we react? but that was just an example as it would never happen).
Putin is NOW intervening but wouldn't we in a Cuban-like, I mean Ukraine-like, situation?
Sorry ericlane U need to "wrap your brain around this reality"
+4 # dbrize 2015-02-17 14:48
You misrepresent what Parry is saying. A common neocon trick.

The US is not "completely responsible" for activities in the Ukraine. They have had plenty of help from our NATO cousins and a garden variety of paid "protesters" recruited by Spooks, Inc. Otherwise known as "intelligence operators". Now indeed, we commonly expect our satraps to do our bidding, so it is fair to say that none of the current turmoil would be likely without out tacit approval and help with planning.

Ms. Nuland let the cat out of the bag proffering proof positive that your feeble attempt to deconstruct reality is mere woofing after the fact.

We have no national interest in the Ukraine. Russia does. that's how the world works.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.