An important clarification from Russia Today News.

[another_liberal]

Those of you who still harbor an open mind (and I like to believe that includes most of you) may be surprised to learn the facts offered in this clarification concerning the situation in Crimea and Ukraine generally:

Russia allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea since 1999... & other facts you may not know.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement. Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade. Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that the country’s military “strictly executes the agreements which stipulate the Russian fleet’s presence in Ukraine, and follows the stance and claims coming from the legitimate authority in Ukraine and in this case the legitimate authority of the Autonomous Republic Crimea as well.”

So here are the facts, numbers, and details of this long-standing (but rarely cited) deal:

1) The Black Sea Fleet has been disputed between Russia and Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991.

2) In 1997, the sides finally managed to find common ground and signed three agreements determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. Two years later, in 1999, the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments ratified them. Russia has received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government a compensation of US$526.5 million.

3) Moscow also annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequency resources, and for the environmental impact caused by the Black Sea Fleet’s operations.

4) According to the initial agreement, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was to stay in Crimea until 2017, but the deal was later prolonged for another 25 years.

5) The 1997 deal allows the Russian navy to have up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on Crimean territory.

(snip)

There is a good deal more information to be read at: http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

[jtuck004]

1. Please put a "put down your drink" warning on this

"Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement."



That does seem like a significant detail in a story.

I really thought that was about an onion article for a second...

[dipsydoodle]

4. What is the normal level there then if its not 16,000 ?

All we really know is that the max level is 25,000.

[jtuck004]

7. I doubt we will ever know. But we know they have bases, there is a fleet based there,

they are working on modernizing it, etc. So there are already troops there, and they likely added to them.

But even if we don't know how many, it does take a little of the steam out to point out that some may have been working on the base, and wishing they had become a doctor just like some of ours, for years. And today they are counted as an invading force. Great, but no extra rubles in the pay envelope. So maybe not.

[another_liberal]

22. Far too often we believe just about anything the faces on our televisions tell us to believe.

And, after all, who doesn't love to hate him a whole bunch of them Russians anyway?

(sarcasm intended)

[jtuck004]

47. I'm surprised we haven't made hating an Olympic sport. n/t

[another_liberal]

49. Maybe its a case like baseball . . .

Americans are just too damn good at it.

[go west young man]

2. Careful with information on factual agreements.

At DU that will get you labeled a Putin lover and all kinds of other names. Especially if it comes from RT. personally I welcome the information as so many people here seem to long for the days of the old cold war.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. Yes. You are right. For months we at DU have been reminiscing fondly

About Mutually Assured Destruction and bad 80's hair. Then Putin performs a relatively innocuous step of having his troops embark on a "get to know your neighbors campaign" by blocking airports and Ukrainian navy ships, and we blow that out of proportion so we can have our longed-for cold war.

You are onto us.

[newthinking]

8. Do you think this is imagined?

[BainsBane]

11. What is your point?

And what do you think the Ukraine should do? Execute all national front types to satisfy you? What do you think that proves? Are you actually trying to justify Russian invasion based on the fact there are national front types in Kiev? If so, why is that type of right-winger so much worse than the right-wing authoritarian and homophobic regime taking over Crimea and seeking to assert dominion over the rest of the Ukraine? My right-winger is better than your right-winger?

It's fascinating to see that people aren't actually anti-war at all. They are pro-war and pro-Empire as long as it's at the hands of Russia.

[newthinking]

12. No, but they certainly should not consort and give them executive branch positions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy

Andriy Volodymyrovych Parubiy (Ukrainian: Андрій Володимирович Парубій is a Ukrainian politician[2] and the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, appointed after leading the anti-government riots in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.[3] His deputy is Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh.[4]
Biography

In the years leading up to the Ukrainian independence in 1991 Parubiy was an active activist for this independence, being arrested for holding an illegal rally in 1988.[2] In 1991 he founded the neo-Nazi[5] Social-National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok.[2] Parubiy co-led the Orange Revolution in 2004.[2][6] In the 2007 parliamentary elections he was elected into the Ukrainian parliament on an Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc ticket.[2] He then became a member of the deputy group that would later become For Ukraine!.[2] Parubiy stayed with Our Ukraine and became a member of its Political Council.[7]

In February 2010 Parubiy had asked the European Parliament to reconsider its negative reaction to former Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko's decision to award Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the title of Hero of Ukraine.[8]

Early February 2012 Parubiy left Our Ukraine because their "views diverged".[9] In 2012 he was re-elected into parliament on the party list of "Fatherland".[10]

In 2013–14 Parubiy was a commandant of the Euromaidan.[11] He was coordinator of the volunteer security corps for the mainstream protesters.[12]

------------------------

Andriy Parubiy, a lawmaker who served as commander of the protest movement’s guards, was chosen to serve as chair of the national security and defence council. Victoria Siumar, a civil society activist, and Dmytro Yarosh, head of Right Sector, a militant protest group, were proposed as his deputies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector#cite_note-ftyarosh1-16 (note 16 at the bottom)

[BainsBane]

14. I guess I'm just an old-fashioned anti-imperialist

I kind of believe it's not my business to pick cabinet ministers for sovereign nations. Nor do I believe the selection of one I don't like justifies foreign intervention. I can tell you right now Putin doesn't give a fuck about right-wingers in the cabinet. He wants to control the Ukraine and the shale oil in Crimea. I just hope the Ukraine is enough for him.

[Adrahil]

31. Seems to me...

... that if Ukraine really wants to integrate with Europe, that would serve as a significant mollifying factor. The EU will not tolerate neo-nazi policies from a prospective member. And so far, Svoboda is not strong enough to affect much policy in that direction.

[BainsBane]

38. Okay, so if a country has neo-Nazis

It makes foreign intervention justified, at least by Russia.

What was most dangerous about the Nazis was their murder of millions of Jews, gays, and members of the political opposition, as well as takeover of Europe. Putin imprisons members of the political oppositions, beats and arrests gays, and makes their very identity illegal. He has also invaded a sovereign nation. But that is evidently okay with you because there are neo-Nazis in the Ukraine. I can't respect that position. I find war deplorable and make no exception for homophobic, authoritarian right-wing nations led by former KGB operatives.

I don't get the principal here. There is none. This isn't the Cold War where one might insist the struggle of the working class depends on permanent revolution. He's nothing more than a strong-man, an authoritarian not unlike others in history who have plowed through neighboring nations in pursuit of empire and power.

[Adrahil]

30. You know they hold parliamentary seats, right?

You can't exclude them from the government because you don't like them.

[rdharma]

37. You can't exclude them because they are calling the shots........

The Right Sector's thugs have the interim government scared spitless!

[BainsBane]

10. When it gets to the point of justifying a military incursion into a sovereign nation

Being "labeled a Putin lover" is the least of it.

[newthinking]

16. Crimea is considered and legally an autonomous region and has it's own parliment

They wanted Russia to protect them.

Given the very real question on the legitimacy of the overthrow, and given that such an action by Crimea is as much, if not even a more legitimate mandate, since they truly speak for a majority in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

It is also incredibly hypocritical to be on the one hand in support of "people power" in Kiev, and then try to use different criteria for Crimea, where virtually the entire republic wants to remain autonomous from the new government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Autonomous regions don't get to invite armed foreign troops to patrol the country

It's bad enough when it's troops of the actual country doing that (rather than police); but when it's foreigners, it's an occupation. The agreement RT is trumpeting is about the Russian military in their bases, not firing warning shots at unarmed Ukrainian soldiers to stop them doing their normal work.

[BainsBane]

39. You are superb at reciting Russian propaganda

It is one thing to support autonomy for the Ukraine through a political process and another to defend annexation, which is precisely what you are doing. There are ways for people to exert self-determination through the UN. Being taken over by a foreign nation is not self-determination. That is Putin's transparent pretext, not unlike Bush's BS for invading Iraq. Lots of people in the Crimea, including the military, oppose the Russian intervention, as the stand off yesterday with the Russian troops showed, and as the protests by tartars showed.

[another_liberal]

25. I was called a lot worse when I opposed the Iraq war . . .

And when I rejected acceptance of Israel's "Cast Lead" savagery against the civilian population in Gaza. That kind of name-calling only assures me I am making some closed minds open up a bit and think critically for a change.

[snooper2]

42. Yeah, it's not like Russian assholes are firing shots over the heads

of Ukrainian soldiers or anything right....

I guess your handle is correct though, If you are in Alaska

[L0oniX]

43. Our propaganda is better than theirs.

[Tx4obama]

5. As a wise man here on DU once said: RT is bankrolled by the Kremlin...

[newthinking]

13. You should be sceptical of most media

in this age. The key is to research multiple sources.

Do you feel that Thomm Hartman is no longer to be listened to? I think he still posts here from time to time.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Such references

usually refer to an event last July which has got sfa to do with Ukraine. If you can find similar comments from prior years feel free to provide links.

[another_liberal]

23. What if the Kremlin "bankrolls" them to tell us the truth?

Should we then still just reject what they are saying out of hand.

Pardon me, my friend, but that would be what is called an irrational bias, and might even be termed Russophobic fear-mongering.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Those who doubt RT may wish to note that even the NYT

mentioned the Russia Ukraine Friendship Treaty at the time, although there were different leaders in place then (1997).

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/01/world/setting-past-aside-russia-and-ukraine-sign-friendship-treaty.html

From the NYT link:

The Crimea was ceded to Ukraine as a gift from Russia by Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1954. At the time, the gesture was essentially symbolic since both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union, but it has been a matter of intense dispute and antagonism since 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart.

The treaty was first written, and nearly signed, two years ago, and it has not been substantially altered since then.

The main points stress political and commercial cooperation between the countries, and it includes a joint statement on the Black Sea Fleet that will permit Russia to operate on Ukrainian territory.

See also https://archive.org/details/russianukrainian00stew

But little things like treaties or history or FACTS never seem to bother the warmongers who hope to profit from disaster.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. The part where the NYT excuses thousands of Russian soldiers taking over

Ukranian territory in Crimea, surrounding Ukrainian Military bases, and demanding the Ukranian soldiers' surrender doesn't show up on my computer.

[BlueMTexpat]

44. Well, the article is from 1997 -

Are you more interested in picking a fight than in learning some history?

Sheesh!

[The Magistrate]

46. It Is Common Knowledge, Ma'am

It is something of an antique arrangement, a hold-over from earlier colonial times, similar to Guantanamo, or to lodgements in China like Tientsin and Weihaiwei.

Nothing in the treaty grants any right for operations aimed at influencing the politics of the Crimea or Ukraine; it does not even authorize action aimed at protecting fellow nationals in the vicinity, even were there any actual danger. Were there some real international authority to enforce treaty contracts, Russia would be ruled to have violated it, and rendered it null and void, no longer binding on any other party.

[BlueMTexpat]

56. I am actually flattered to have

attracted a comment from you, TM. I always admire your pithy, on-point comments.

Based on some comments I have seen on DU (sigh) and certainly in the MSM by the same "patriots" who want the US to resolve every crisis with a bomb, I would beg to differ with you that the treaty has even shown up as a blip on their scopes. In fact, most probably don't have enough information even to know where the Crimea is situated. Hopefully, this crisis will at least serve as a teaching point.

While I do not disagree with you at all on your cogent analysis, the treaty (and the absent "elected" President of Ukraine who fled to Moscow) still provide more justification for Putin's actions than anything that the US ever relied on to invade Iraq (or numerous other nations) or for its continuing drone warfare, along with its interference in internal domestic politics almost everywhere around the world. And no, I don't believe that Putin's actions were justified - he is an evil tyrant as dastardly as any - but ....

In similar circumstances (and I can't even think of an appropriate analogy because the US is so well protected by its physical isolation from the European and Asian continents - except perhaps for AK), I am not so sure that our leaders would have behaved any differently or with any less restraint.

We have lost any "high" ground that we once may have had. That is one of the most tragic consequences of our bellicose actions, especially those occurring in the past 12 years. But I support the actions of President Obama and John Kerry in this crisis so far and hope that the "adults" will prevail all round.

[The Magistrate]

57. You Are Too Kind, Ma'am

I agree we have surrendered any claim to moral high ground in the matter.

I would disagree that Mr. Putin has any more justification for his actions here that we have had for many of ours.

However, I certainly understand the desire of any Russian leader to hold on to the Crimea. It is essential to their exercise of naval power, and gaining and maintaining access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean has long been a focus of Russian statecraft. A power with the military capability Russia possesses cannot be expect to give up a thing like that just for the asking, and certainly Mr. Putin's conduct earlier has left him no reason whatever to expect friendship and accommodation from a Ukrainian government now or in the future. Russia has no right to the Crimea, but it does have the might to hold it, and that is all the right it really needs.

I expect Russia will emerge from this with the Crimea, and no friends.

[BlueMTexpat]

58. You may be correct about the outcome.

But I certainly hope that the crisis/standoff can be resolved peacefully, with some sort of positively proactive future engagement that all parties can live with.

The whole situation has been a crisis waiting to happen.

[The Magistrate]

59. I Cetainly Share That Hope, Ma'am

And, to be blunt, think it more likely than not it will be realized.

[iamthebandfanman]

18. So, this articles argument is

that because the Ukraine and Russia made a deal to lease the land and allow Russia to keep its navel fleet and bases in Crimea, that means they can use those troops outside of their bases for an occupation of the entire region?
kind of a stretch, don't ya think?

so by that logic, can the united states invade and occupy the region surrounding Ramstein in Germany?


that being said, I fully support crimea having the right to secede from the rest of the country if its the wishes of the majority of the region. i don't think anyone should have any say except the people of crimea tho.

[GeorgeGist]

19. If there was a non-democratic overthrow of the German government?

[pampango]

21. We get to invade Germany using troops from the base? n/t

[pampango]

20. That is the key question. There is no doubt that Russian troops are allowed in Crimea - that's where

the base is. Obviously you are going to have a lot of troops on a military base.

Troops in military bases in foreign countries are allowed to defend the base from the territory of the base. Foreign troops are not normally allowed to 'protect the base' by taking control of areas hundreds of miles from the base. The important question here is not whether Russia is allowed to have 16,000 or 25,000 or 100,000, for that matter, troops in Crimea. It would be very enlightening to see the details of the lease agreement between Ukraine and Russia that describes where these troops can be deployed - on-base, off-base.

[randome]

24. Like our bases in Japan mean we can take over the country when we want, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

33. I doubt it.

Do you seriously think so?

[pampango]

35. No. My point is that I'm sure we have the right to protect the base using troops within the base

perimeter. Unless Japan has granted it to us (which they have not), we do not have the right to take over the whole island of Okinawa to 'protect' the bases there.

Hypothetically, it could be that the terms of the Sevastopol base lease agreement could give Russia permission to use their troops throughout Crimea in order to 'protect' the base. Equally hypothetically, the terms of our Okinawa base agreement could give the US permission to occupy all of the island of Okinawa in order to 'protect the bases'. Of course, neither Japan nor Ukraine have given permission to the foreign military troops occupying those bases to spread out and take over the entire island or peninsula.

If such provisions were in the Ukraine-Russia base lease agreement, I am sure we would have seen it by now and Putin and others would not have to deny that they troops taking over Crimea were indeed Russian.

[randome]

40. I was trying for sarcasm and agreeing with your original point.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. An important clarification from Fox News:

BENGHAZI!!!!! IRS!!!!!!! KENYAN BORN MUSLIM SOCIALIST TERRORIST (wait, did we just say that?)!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SidDithers]

28. And remember, RT is an impartial, objective news source...

We know this because one of their reporters said something critical of the Russian government, and because Glenn Greeenwald said so.

Sid

[another_liberal]

34. At least someone had the courage to not just unquestioningly fall into line . . .

At least someone had the courage to not just unquestioningly fall into line with the overthrow of a democratically elected head of state and government of another sovereign nation. We should be thanking people like Glenn Greenwald, not slandering their reputations.

[pampango]

36. Yanukovych 'overthrew' himself. The February 21 agreement with the protesters required him to remain

in office, protect public buildings and schedule a new election for December. He did none of those things. He did not even try to do any of them. Within a few hours he had packed up and left.

Instead of doing what he had agree to do, he ordered the security forces not protect government buildings and fled just a few hours after signing the agreement. Plan A seemed to be for him to contain and eventually break up the protests so that he could remain in office. Plan A collapsed when he signed the February 21 agreement agreeing to the December election which he was not confident he would win given events.

Plan B (from Putin?) was to leave and intentionally leave public buildings unprotected hoping their subsequent occupation would create the image of a violent takeover of the Ukrainian government that could be used to justify unspecified actions in the future.

The "democratically elected president" would still be in office if he had complied with the agreement, used security forces the way he had just agreed to use them and remained in Kiev running the government. All the Russian leadership knows that Yanukovych is a joke. Putin said there is no role for him in Ukrainian government in the future. Putin has no use for him other than as an abstract "democratically elected president" whom he hopes never returns to Kiev but can be used as a negotiating chip.

Within a few hours of signing an agreement that would keep him in power until December (and possibly much longer if he won the election) he not only turned and ran, but acted very 'unpresidentially' by ordering security forces to not protect the remaining government in which his own political party was still a majority. Why would he do that unless there was a Plan B?

What would anyone have wanted the remaining government representative to do when such a clown ran away? Beg him to come back? Beg him to tell the security forces to do their job? Beg him to do his own job? If he was afraid to stay in Kiev and do his job even though he had control of and protection from the police, security forces and Ukrainian military, what makes anyone think he would come back after running away in the first place? Perhaps the presence of a larger, more powerful army? Hmmmmm.

[BainsBane]

45. "unquestionably fall into line"

That is exactly what RT is doing. They are falling in line with what Putin tells them, and for some bizarre reason a few here are uncritically repeating all of it.

There are options besides the US and Russian media you know.

[another_liberal]

50. Good . . .

The more possible points of view available, the better informed we'll all be.

[Progressive dog]

29. I'm so gald to know that imperialism is OK

if it's Russia doing it. The Ukrainians signed a treaty under no duress of any kind, so Russia can "legally" take over whatever parts of Ukraine it wants to.

[another_liberal]

32. Who is saying that?

Certainly not I.

[L0oniX]

41. I see that happen all the time ...seeing what has not been said and blathering about it...

...to provoke and disrupt.

[Progressive dog]

53. RT News defends the Russians in

the article you posted part of. Russia and the Soviets held Ukraine for three centuries. The Soviets killed off 10 million of them and replaced them with Russians. Now they have to "protect" the Russians (who haven't been threatened) from the Ukrainians. Sounds like the very definition of imperialism.

[ProSense]

48. So why

"Russia allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea since 1999... & other facts you may not know."

...did Putin try to deny the forces were Russian? Why did Russia give the impression that they needed Ukraine's approval?

QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.

QUESTION: But were they Russian soldiers or not?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those were local self-defence units.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-putin-defends-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/2014/03/04/9cadcd1a-a3a9-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Yanukovych says he will not ask Russia to intervene militarily in Ukraine

<...>

“It would not be correct on my part to say what Russia needs to do,” Yanukovych said in his first public appearance since he fled Ukraine, turning up in Moscow this week. “But Russia cannot stand aside, it cannot be indifferent to the destiny of such a big partner as Ukraine,” he said.

“Russia needs to use all the leverage it has to prevent the chaos and terror in Ukraine,” he added. “It’s hard for me to give any kind of tips. I do not accept any attempt at intervention that would violate the integrity of Ukrainian sovereignty.”

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/yanukovych-says-he-will-not-ask-russia-to-intervene-militarily-in-ukraine/2014/02/28/b0381734-a082-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

Russia Claims Ousted Ukrainian President Asked For Military Intervention

The Russian envoy to the United Nations claimed on Monday that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yakunovich asked the Russian military to intervene in Ukraine, Reuters reported.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin read a letter from Yakunovich at a U.N. Security Council meeting.

"Under the influence of Western countries, there are open acts of terror and violence," Churkin read from the letter. "So in this regard I would call on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine."

Churkin held up the letter at the meeting, according to Reuters.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/yakunovich-letter-russia-military-intervention

That letter was dated after the force buildup and after Yakunovich fled.

[EmilyAnne]

51. Ok, now this is just too much. Give me a break.

I've lived in Putin's Russia.
I saw firsthand the free(ish) press being dismantled.
I had a journalist friend who reported on skinhead violence be threatened and then completely shutdown.
The head of the African Union in St. Petersburg has not had a single article nor interview published since 2009.


As for this article, everyone knows about this agreement.
No one is choosing to ignore that there are Russian troops at Crimean military bases, no one is denying the existence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
This is just too ridiculous.
The issue is what the Russian troops are doing.
Controlling communication?
Violating airspace?
Shooting at over the heads of civilians?
Taking over border check points?
Escorting and threatening Ukrainian ships around Sevastapol?
Taking over Ukrainian ferries?
All of these things fall under this agreement?

Just ridiculous.

[another_liberal]

55. Have you seen how events are being reported in American media?

"Russia Invades Ukraine!" That is how they are being reported.

This kind of factual article is needed by the American public. At least those of us who don't want another war think it is, and badly so.

[cthulu2016]

52. Is this post supposed to be funny? You are citing RT?

[TorchTheWitch]

60. RT has been used as a source ever since Assange went to work there

For some reason no one likes to acknowledge that RT is state sponsored (ie: the old Soviet era Pravda).

Why anyone here believes that a state "news" organization makes for a legitimate source is beyond me.

[Tx4obama]

54. Ex-RT Anchor Liz Wahl: RT 'Not About the Truth, It's About Promoting a Putinist Agenda'

Ex-RT Anchor Liz Wahl: RT ‘Not About the Truth, It’s About Promoting a Putinist Agenda’

Ex-RT anchor Liz Wahl made her first post-resignation TV appearance with Anderson Cooper Wednesday night, telling him that in the midst of the current Ukranian crisis, the “propagandist nature of RT came out in full force” and she couldn’t bring herself to work there anymore. She cited specific examples of biased news coverage, including a package about Neo-Nazis in the opposition. Wahl said “to portray the entire operation as being part of this right-wing extremist group is going along with the narrative that Vladimir Putin wants to go along with.”

She told Cooper there are lots of young people working at RT “eager to please management” and “there’s a form of self-censorship that you learn” in order to “present the Putin perspective.” She said, “RT is not about the truth, it’s about promoting a Putinist agenda.”

She dismissed RT’s statement that she resigned for attention, explaining she hesitated in the first place because of “fear of repercussion,” but found it “comforting” to hear positive feedback on social media. Wahl told The Daily Beast earlier today that the true agenda of RT’s propaganda is “making America look bad.”

-snip-

Post and VIDEO here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-rt-anchor-to-cooper-rt-%E2%80%98not-about-the-truth-it%E2%80%99s-about-promoting-a-putinist-agenda%E2%80%99/