The only way to expose lies is within context; so, this will be somewhat lengthy:

The Times editorial opens with a falsehood:

"There is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine, not as volunteers, as the rebel commander in Donetsk would have the world believe, but in units equipped with mobile artillery and heavy military equipment."

Their only cited source for that statement is "a senior NATO officer." But should anyone take as a source, on that type of matter, either an anonymous U.S.-NATO official, or an anonymous Russian official? That's hardly an unprejudiced "source," in either case - and it's their only source on this.

The context here has to be understood: During the run-up to our 19 March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times was similarly taking, as sources, anonymous U.S. officials, who lied about the evidence, saying that aluminum tubes were definitely being used for making weapons of mass destruction, when they weren't at all, and that "uranium from Niger" was being snuck into Iraq for nuclear bombs that were also a fabrication - outright forged 'evidence,' selectively accepted, while the Times selectively rejected, and avoided even to mention, far more-solid evidence to the exact contrary. They wanted us to invade, and we did. The Times apologized for their "errors" years later, after the damage had already been done - damage (many thousands of corpses, and several trillions of dollars in costs) that the Times greatly assisted George W. Bush to produce, by helping to sell the country on doing it.

The Times is today trying to repeat their catastrophic success, in Ukraine and elsewhere, simply because their readership continue to subscribe, notwithstanding the paper's proven abysmal journalistic quality - which wins top awards, even after having been demonstrated by that catastrophic experience to be actually dismally, even catastrophically, poor.

The Times has not improved since then. There has been no accountability for those thousands of corpses, and trillions of dollars, wasted in Iraq. Readers still buy the paper. And, so, this type of 'journalism' (actually mere stenography to the existing U.S. regime - Bush then, Obama now) (transparently just that, and nothing more), continues on, uninterrupted.

Anyway, the Times allegation here is certainly false. There is plenty of doubt, though the Times says, "There is no longer any doubt." Their citing only one - an entirely untrustworthy - source for their allegation is like calling their readers fools to their very faces, but their readers buy it: they still buy the paper, as if it were reliable; and so they are what the Times management think they are, and the Times merely takes advantage of that, and of them, history-be-damned.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is ready to cooperate with Moscow on the delivery of the second humanitarian aid convoy to eastern Ukraine, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"We have already contacted the leaders of the International Committee of the Red Cross who were in general positive regarding our efforts and expressed readiness to cooperate on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We are now discussing the practical details of this operation and expect it to be accomplished," Gatilov said.

The diplomat added that this time, humanitarian aid will be delivered by railroad.

This documentary, released in 2006, shows how the oligarchs rose to power in the post-Soviet era, buying up huge sections of newly privatized industries before moving on to the markets of propaganda (television) and politics. But their downfall was just as swift as their rise, thanks to the principled and effective leadership of Vladimir Putin. Watching this documentary will give a big clue as to why Putin is so demonized today by the West. The oligarchs, after all, are an exemplar of what the West calls 'democracy', but which is in reality heartless oligarchy: 'free' elections created and stage-managed by rich donors and PR companies, usually with foreign investment courtesy of NGOs whose goals are antithetical to the nations in which they operate; the 'freedom' of the '1%' who make more money than they truly need, serving their own selfish interests rather than the public good. It's no wonder that corrupt individuals like Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, and Gusinsky are portrayed as the good guys in Western media. Khodorkovsky was even named person of the year in 2003 by Expert.

Pay attention to the candid remarks made by the oligarchs themselves. For example, this is what Berezovsky had to say about his role in Yeltsin's successful 1996 election: "It's said that the media acted on orders. To these accusations all I can say is, yes, it's true. Directives were given, news coverage wasn't objective, but it's all part of a democratic process." To which the leaders in the West can only agree. This is what Putin is up against.

NATO warlords concluded two days of meetings and related activities. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said a Readiness Action Plan was agreed on.

It'll "strength (the alliance's) defense," he said. It can be deployed on very short notice. It includes "several thousand land troops."

It complement's NATO's (multinational) Response Force. It includes land, air, sea and special force elements.

It's a stand-alone force available for rapid deployment. It maintains up to 25,000 troops. NATO's mission is offense, not defense.

Its readiness tells "any potential aggressor: should you even think of attacking one (member), you will be facing the whole alliance."

Rasmussen announced plans to launch a Defense Capacity Building Initiative. It "reinforce(s) (NATO's) commitment to partner nations.

It includes cooperation with Georgia, Moldova an Jordan. It provides "security capacity support" for Libya. It's ready to assist Iraq on "request."

The alliance's US-led Open Door policy aims for establishing a global police force. To include as many nations as possible.

When the banksters who run America set their sights on the newest designated enemy of democracy, without fail the assault is preceded by information operations to convince a clueless public of the target state's burning hatred for "freedom." Momentarily torn away from corporate entertainment spectacle, enlightened citizen-consumers will be fed phony news stories of atrocities,green-screened crisis coverage set to dramatic music, and helpful cues to identify heroes, victims and villains in the unfolding morality play. Washington is said to be Hollywood for ugly people, and the ugly people have proven remarkably adept at statecraft as stagecraft, selling their brand of international banditry as feel-good humanitarian uplift for decades now.

But just as Hollywood has lurched into creative senility, so too is the template for overseas intervention fraying as US global dominance enters its terminal phase. No longer yielding to "leadership" from the wolves of Wall Street, independent powers have begun to challenge the foundations of the Washington consensus. At the forefront of this movement has been a revived Russia, which in the face of NATO encirclement and with survival on the line, has shown itself willing and able to confront the Pax Americana. But the show must go on; as the United States positions forces ever closer toward Moscow's frontiers, with furrowed brows and feigned concern, the talking heads on our telescreens mechanically inform us of Russian aggression. It's springtime again for Russophobia in the West.

With its roots in the Great Game of espionage and intrigue between Victorian subalterns and the Tsar's Cossacks in Central Asia, a systemic antipathy to Russia as such only took root in America from the time it assumed Britain's imperial mantle at the dawn of the Cold War. The hostility, of course, has been mutual, and Russians have not forgotten how their land suffered through the "peace dividend" of US unipolarity in the 1990s. Promised that the North Atlantic alliance would never contemplate expanding eastward, Mikhail Gorbachev starred in pizza commercials and Boris Yeltsin headlined summits with his trademark vodka-soaked buffoonery. It was then that a weakened, bankrupt Russia could be looted by multinationals, its people impoverished and demoralized, and the state further subverted by forces from "civil society" NGOs to cutthroat jihadist mercenaries waging holy war in the North Caucasus.

How many times have we seen this before?

The President of the United States is on TV telling us horror stories. Some innocent people in some corner of the world are being crushed, he tells us. They face some monstrously evil oppressor, he says. While the United States doesn't like war, what choice is there? Sacrifices must be made, cruise missiles must be unleashed, to protect the poor and innocent. The world is the set of an action movie, and the US is the tragic hero, forced to rescue the innocent.

This is the script we heard in former Yugoslavia. Bill Clinton claimed to be stoping "mass rapes" and "concentration camps." After the smoke had cleared, and thousands had been killed, the truth came out. The United Nations admitted that no "genocide" had taken place. The talk of mass rapes and concentration camps had been hype.


While the alleged crimes used to justify destroying Serbia had been exaggerated, the crimes of the US funded Kosovo Liberation Army were very real. The balkans have never recovered from the bombing and destruction and the funding of ethnic hate groups. The "rescue mission" resulted in deeper misery than ever before.

The OSCE has revealed the 12-point roadmap behind the September 5 truce signed in Minsk. It says that Ukraine must adopt a new law, allowing for a special status for Lugansk and Donetsk regions, and hold early elections there.

The document, titled 'Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group' and signed in Minsk on September 5, outlines what needs to be done for the ceasefire to stay in place.

"To decentralize power, including through the adoption by Ukraine of law 'on provisional procedure for local government in parts of Donetsk and Lugansk regions (law on special status),'" states one of the provisions in the document.

Another point emphasizes that "early local elections" are to be held in light of the special status of both regions. The early elections must be held in accordance with the same proposed law, it says.

There are so many rumors and opinions about the latest ceasefire for Novorussia agreed between the Novorussian leaders and the Junta reps that I have decided to make a small survey of the issues in the format of a Q&A/FAQ. I will write up a real analysis next week. I also will use this opportunity to explain a few thing about what my own personal position is. So here goes:

Q: Do you support or oppose the latest peaceplan?

A: Neither. First, I still have not seen the 14 points actually agreed upon and, most importantly, I don't believe that this plan will hold.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is opposed by all the following groups: the USA, NATO, the Ukie Nazis, most of the Novorussian field commanders and a large segment of the Russian nationalist ideologues in Russia. Furthermore, Poroshenko is so weak that he probably cannot impose his will on others. Finally, the Ukies and their western supporters have so reneged on every agreement they signed/

Q: So you think that this agreement is irrelevent?

A: No, not at all. For one thing, it's perfect timing took a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-Russian crowd at the NATO summit which, after all, did not result in anything more than hot air and empty threats.

Q: Are you saying that this is a victory for Russia?

A: Hardly, but it has been an effective way to temporarily defuse a potentially dangerous situation. Also, the very fact that neither the EU or NATO or the US were even present in Minsk is a very powerful symbol of the fact that the "indispensable nation" and it instruments of colonial domination are not indispensable after all.

Q: But will this ceasefire not allow the Junta Repression Force (JRF) to regroup?
A: Yes, but that is not that relevant because of the size of its strategic depth the Junta can to reorganize and regroup anyway. Most the JRF units close to the front are so beat up that "regrouping" will not help very much. At best ("best" for the JRF of course), this ceasefire will turn a hasty retreat into a more or less organized withdrawal followed by a much needed break. But the key thing to always remember is this: wars are won by willpower, by moral strength, by a fighting spirit. Unlike the Russians, the Ukies have had their fighting spirit completely broken by the NAF. Check out the picture circulating on the RuNet which I have posted above. It shows a wounded Russian solider (from the 08.08.08 iirc) war against Georgia and a Ukrainian solider captured in Novorussia (who had been made famous by his militaristic and neo-Nazis videos posted on the Ukie social media). This montage shows something crucial: just compare the determined and undefeated expression of the severely wounded Russia private with the totally broken and terrified expression of the Ukrainian "paratrooper". The difference here is not "Russian" vs "Ukrainian" in an ethnic sense (there is no such thing as an "ethnic Russian" or an "ethnic Ukrainian" - they are all ethnically mixed), but the difference in the fighting spirit of the Russian solider and the Ukrainian one. And no amount of US/NATO aid can change this: unlike the Ukie, the Russian knows what he is fighting for and he is determined.

Official statements from the Russian government indicate that the president and foreign minister continue to rely on the good will of "our Western partners" to work out a reasonable diplomatic solution to the trouble in Ukraine caused by Washington. Not only is there no evidence of this good will in Western capitals, the hostile measures against Russia are increasing. Moreover, hostile measures are on the rise even though their main effect is to disadvantage Europe.

For example, the socialist president of France has followed Washington's orders and refused to deliver a ship that it owes to Russia under contract. The news reports are so incompetent that they do not say whether Russia has paid for the ship or whether payment was awaiting completion. If Russia has not already paid, then the failure to deliver will harm whoever financed the construction of the ship. If Russia has paid, then the idiot French president has placed France in violation of a contract and under international law France is subject to heavy financial penalties.

It is not clear how this hurts Russia. It is Russia's strategic nuclear force that the West has to fear, not a helicopter carrier. What Hollande has taught Russia is not to do business with France or any country in NATO.

Russia should promptly take the contract violation to court. Either France will be sanctioned with penalties that could exceed the value of the contract or the West will prove that in its hands international law is meaningless. If I were Russia, I would give up a helicopter ship in order to establish this point.

The Justice Department released two decade-old memos Friday night, offering the fullest public airing to date of the Bush administration's legal justification for the warrantless wiretapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails - a program that began in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The broad outlines of the argument - that the president has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans' communications without a warrant in a time of war - were known, but the sweep of the reasoning becomes even clearer in the memos written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who was head of President George W. Bush's Office of Legal Counsel.

"We conclude only that when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States and the president determines in his role as commander in chief . . . that it is essential for defense against a further foreign attack to use the [wiretapping] capabilities of the [National Security Agency] within the United States, he has inherent constitutional authority" to order warrantless wiretapping - "an authority that Congress cannot curtail," Goldsmith wrote in a redacted 108-page memo dated May 6, 2004.