September 15th, 2013


Переполох в курятнике

В США четвертый день обсуждается статья Путина в NYTimes. На вебсайте NYTimes она остаётся самой "обсуждаемой в блогах" и в числе самых читаемых

Среди американского истеблишмента и chattering classes - настоящий переполох (WhatWhatWhat???) по поводу того как много американцев поддерживает позицию Путина. В бой брошены уже не раз использованные пропагандоны. Пропагандоны бегают в панике. Вот, пример рестерянной раскудавшейся курицы: Here's What Went Unmentioned in Putin's New York Times Op-Ed.

Подкинул ей комментарий:
The lies start from the first sentence of Julia Ioffe’s article. Putin hadn't “started two wars” as claimed. The 1999 war in the breakaway region of Chechnya was a war of necessity in response to the direct invasion of Dagestan by Islamic militants based in Chechnya, as well as a series of horrible terrorist bombings in several Russian cities. The August 2008 war in South Ossetia was started by Georgia, not by Russia – it began on the eve of Beijing Olympics opening with a sudden, massive and indiscriminate bombing of residential areas of sleeping city of Tskhinvali, followed by the attack of motorized troops, which killed many civilians and a couple of dozens of Russian peacekeepers (and which was almost completely ignored by the US media). During the same time US started one war of necessity (Afghanistan) and several wars of choice, including Iraq, which remains by far the biggest war crime of the new millennium. Today Chechnya is in incomparably better shape than Iraq or any other place USA invaded recently. Putin has every right to lecture the American establishment on war and peace, based on his track record.

There is no clear picture yet about who used chemical weapon in Damascus suburb, but there is little doubt who wanted it to happen – the Islamist rebels and their sponsors from Gulf monarchies. The very fact that Bashar Assad very quickly agreed to relinquish and eliminate his chemical arsenal following the Russian proposal shows that he doesn't need them; they are nuisance rather than assets in the current situation. At the same time the US government kept repeating the “red line” rhetoric about chemical weapons almost obsessively, indicating that it actually wanted them to be used, as a pretext for intervention. Let’s recall the events preceding August 21. In early July Egyptian military junta launched a coup and within a few days killed nearly 1000 (mostly unarmed) protesters. US barely wafted a finger. This made a sick joke of the Western claims that it was solely the Assad’s repressions against protesters in the March and April of 2011 (much, much less than the crackdown in Egypt) to blame for the Syrian civil war. At the same time the rebellion in Syria was running out of steam for the last few months, with Islamist forces suffering important setbacks. By August 20 Syria almost disappeared from the international focus, with government forces steadily gaining ground. The rebels and their sponsors desperately needed a pretext for the US attack. That’s what likely happened with chemical incident.