I spend a lot of time on this blog criticising the propaganda role of liberal media, including my former newspaper the Guardian. Media critics like Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman have called it "brainwashing under freedom". Because of a long filtering process before they reach positions of influence, journalists working for the corporate media in free societies replicate many of the failings of journalists working for media in repressive and closed societies. There are differences. The propaganda in free societies is more subtle and insidious; the journalists are more likely to believe what they write; and a degree of pluralism is allowed, even while plausible and important voices are ignored or ridiculed. But propaganda it still is.

I highlight this long and prominent article in the Guardian on Putin's handling of Crimea and Ukraine because it is a master-class in brainwashing under freedom. The paper's Moscow correspondent, Shaun Walker, is presumably well-acquainted with Russian society. He has full access to Russian media propaganda, so he knows full well Russia's side of the argument. And he has acres of space in which to set out all the various viewpoints. And yet, he never manages to give a proper hearing to Russia's side of the argument.

Even from a casual reading of a few dissident writers on Crimea, I know that Russian leaders have made two important points: one about western hypocrisy over Crimea, and the other about the threat posed to Russian interests by Nato (read: US) expansionism. So how does Walker deal with these two arguments in his long article?

One cannot quite say he entirely ignores them, but he certainly does not present the case either. If you search the article, you will not find a mention of the terms "Nato", "expansion" or "Iraq". But Walker does not regard himself as a paid propagandist, so he subtly alludes to these positions without ever directly dealing with them. For if he did, we, the reader, might realise how significant or persuasive some of Putin's arguments are. At the same time, he exploits these allusions, not to highlight issues that would reflect badly on the US and its lapdog supporters but to further undermine Putin's credibility.

It was Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels who coined the phrase: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Goebbels' words came to mind when reading the German newspapers on Monday.

Following the prolonged intervention by the American and German governments in the internal affairs of Ukraine, utilising fascist mobs to overthrow an elected president and provoking civil war and the danger of war with Russia, almost all German newspapers on Monday published editorials and headlines branding Russian President Vladimir Putin as the aggressor and demanding Germany undertake a much more aggressive policy toward Russia.

The weekly Der Spiegel blazed across its cover: "The arsonist - Who will stop Putin." The cover photo montage featured an oversized Putin with a sly expression. He is surrounded by the tiny figures of Obama wagging his finger and a frightened Cameron and Merkel waving white peace flags.

Inside the magazine a ten-page article declares: "The world is now undergoing a kind of stress test: can the democratic West stand up to the lust for power on the part of an Eastern autocrat? Can diplomacy bring to its knees a despot who dispatches his troops?"

Notorious Ukrainian right-wing militant leader Aleksandr Muzychko, also known as Sashko Bilyi, has been shot dead during a police raid against his gang, confirmed Ukraine's Ministry of Interior. Neil Clark, a UK-based journalist and broadcaster who's been covering the events in Ukraine extensivley, explained why allegations that the Right Sector activist was assassinated make perfect sense

"I'm suggesting Mr. President, there's a military plot to take over the Government of these United States, next Sunday..." - Col. Martin 'Jiggs' Casey, Seven Days in May (1964)

With a screenplay written by Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, director John Frankenheimer's 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May is a clear warning to beware of martial law packaged as a well meaning and overriding concern for the nation's security. Yet, incredibly enough, 50 years later, we find ourselves hostages to a government run more by military doctrine and corporate greed than by the rule of law established in the Constitution.

Indeed, proving once again that fact and fiction are not dissimilar, today's current events - ranging from the government's steady militarization of law enforcement agencies, and its urban training exercises wherein military troops rappel from Black Hawk helicopters in cities across the country, from Miami and Chicago to Minneapolis, to domestic military training drills timed and formulated to coincide with or portend actual crises, and the Obama administration's sudden and growing hostilities with Russia - could well have been lifted straight out of Seven Days in May, which takes viewers into eerily familiar terrain.

The premise is straightforward enough: With the Cold War at its height, Jordan Lyman (played by Fredric March), an unpopular U.S. President, signs a momentous nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Believing that the treaty constitutes an unacceptable threat to the security of the United States and certain that he knows what is best for the nation, General James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presidential hopeful, plans a military takeover of the national government. When Gen. Scott's aide, Col. Casey (Kirk Douglas), discovers the planned military coup, he goes to the President with the information. The race for command of the U.S. government begins, with the clock ticking off the hours until Sunday, when the military plotters plan to overthrow the President.

Russia is not clinging to the G8 format, as all major world problems can be discussed at other international venues such as G20, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

"The G8 is an informal club, no one gives out membership cards and no one can expel members," Lavrov told a media conference at the Hague. "If our Western partners believe that this format has exhausted itself, let it be. We are not clinging to it."

He went on to say that many believe that the G8 has already fulfilled its mission as many issues are now discussed at the G20 forum.

"Generally speaking, there are also other formats for considering many questions, including the UN Security Council, the Middle East Quartet and the P5+1 on the Iranian nuclear problem," Lavrov told journalists.

The Minister also commented on earlier reports regarding Australia considering not inviting President Vladimir Putin to the November G20 meeting, which is going to be held in Brisbane.

"The G20 was not established by Australia, which voiced the proposal not to invite Russia to the meeting. We created the format all together," Lavrov said.

In sharp contrast to the G7 leaders, the BRICS nations have expressed strong support of Russia and its president, the Times of India reported.

The Obama administration is utilising Moscow's incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation to escalate its campaign of threats and sanctions. To this end, the United States is lining up its puppet regime in Ukraine and its regional allies to prepare a series of military provocations.

Following a speech Tuesday to the Russian Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty annexing Crimea.

US Vice-President Joseph Biden responded by accusing Russia of a "blatant violation of international law" and making a "brazen military incursion." The US was considering deploying ground troops to the Baltic States on new military exercises, he threatened.

Hours later, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told his defence ministry that the conflict in Crimea had entered a military phase. Yatsenyuk accused Russian forces of killing a Ukrainian serviceman at a base near the Crimean regional capital, Simferopol, calling the incident "a war crime." Ukraine then authorised its troops to fire in "self-defence."

Provocations to legitimise war need not take place only within Crimea. They could be staged throughout eastern Ukraine.

Any (bureaucratic) doubts the New Cold War is on have been dispelled by the Group of Seven issuing a pompous, self-described Hague Declaration. Abandon all hope those who expected The Hague to become the seat of a tribunal judging the war crimes of the Cheney regime.

The G-7 also cancelled its upcoming summer summit in Sochi as a means of "punishing" Moscow over Crimea. As if this carried any practical value. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded with class; if you don't want us, we have better things to do. [1] Everyone knows the G-7 is an innocuous, self-important talk shop. It's in the G-20 - much more representative of the real world - where crucial geopolitical and geoeconomic issues gain traction.

The Hague Declaration comes complete with the kiss of death, as in, "The International Monetary Fund has a central role leading the international effort to support Ukrainian reform, lessening Ukraine's economic vulnerabilities, and better integrating the country as a market economy in the multilateral system." That's code for "wait till structural adjustment starts biting".

And then there will be "measures to enhance trade and strengthen energy security" - code for "we will destroy your industry" but "are not very keen on paying your humongous Gazprom bill".

Nigel Farage says EU president Herman van Rompuy has the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk.

Armenia has backed Crimea's choice of joining Russia, supporting the right to self-determination for the peninsula's population. In response, Ukraine has recalled its ambassador to Armenia.

"Armenia's principled position on the right to self-determination remains unchanged and has been repeatedly expressed over the years," Armenia's deputy foreign minister, Shavarsh Kocharyan, told Ukrainian Ambassador Ivan Kukhta, as quoted by the Armenian Foreign Ministry's press service.

The meeting, which took place in Armenia's capital of Yerevan, was initiated by the Ukrainian side after Armenia's President Serzh Sargsyan expressed support for the Crimean referendum, stating it was justified.

Philip Breedlove says large force on eastern border of Ukraine could easily move into Trans-Dniester if the decision was made

Nato's most senior military commander said on Sunday that Russia had amassed a large military force on Ukraine's eastern border, and warned that Moldova's separatist Trans-Dniester region could be the Kremlin's next target.

General Philip Breedlove, Nato's supreme allied commander, described the Russian force that began exercises 10 days ago as very, very sizeable and very, very ready.

"There is absolutely sufficient force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Trans-Dniester if the decision was made to do that. That is very worrisome," Breedlove said.

The White House also intimated that Russia may be readying for further action. Tony Blinken, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, described the troop build-up as deeply concerning. He told CNN the Moscow's evident goal was to intimidate the Ukrainians, and added: "It's possible that they're preparing to move in."

"I'm very worried the unlawful attempt to alter the recognised borders of our European neighbourhood, 25 years after the end of the Cold War, will open Pandora's box," The German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Welt am Sonntag. Steinmeier visited Donetsk on Saturday. He described the situation there as anything but stable.