Russia 'Mobilizing for War' Warns Canadian Intelligence Report
Source: Haaretz
The Canadian government is considering a new commitment of hundreds of troops in Eastern Europe as part of an effort to deter Russian aggression in the region, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported on Tuesday. This follows a report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Services - the Canadian government intelligence agency - based on research by outsiders rather than its own assessment, warning that Russian President Vladimir Putin's hard-line policies were becoming "more deeply entrenched," as the CBC put it, and that "Moscow is retooling its military for a fight" and possibly "mobilizing for war."
"It is modernizing conventional military capability on a large scale; the state is mobilizing for war," the intelligence agency report stated.
The Canadian government is also considering assuming partial command of new NATO military force to deter Russian aggression, to which the United States, Britain and Germany committed themselves on Tuesday, the CBC said. "Up to 4,000 troops are envisioned for the force, but the number coming from Canada, along with the type of equipment and vehicles that would be involved, is still being assessed," the CBC website reported.
The CBC also took note of a report released last winter by the American think tank the Rand Corporation suggesting that the new NATO force would not be capable of stopping invading Russian forces and that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia could possibly be overrun within a few days unless the West stations "heavily armored brigades" in the Baltic countries. "Even before the contingent is finalized, political leaders in the Baltics have privately complained it is too small, according to published reports in Europe," the CBC said.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.725212
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
anoNY42
(670 posts)I just love seeing all of the news reports about how "Nato" could be defeated in "60 hours" by Russia (like this one: https://www.rt.com/news/346041-nato-baltics-russian-aggression/)
These stories completely miss the point, which is that once Russia overran those "Nato" forces (i.e., the forces currently stationed in those specific countries in Eastern Europe), it would still be at war with Nato proper (i.e., the combined militaries of the US and other Nato allies). Does anyone think Russia would bring on that kind of pain in order to gain back some Warsaw Pact territory?
7962
(11,841 posts)Its no secret what he thinks
And no one should blame the Baltic countries for being scared of whats going to happen
anoNY42
(670 posts)Putin wants what he wants, but we have Nato obligations in the region and I doubt Putin would be dumb enough to force us to get involved. Taking Crimea is one thing, since it did not implicate Nato. If the US did not act in the event of an invasion of a Nato country, we would lose all credibility in the world.
This is why the recent reports about how Russia could take over Latvia et.al. in 60 hours made me chuckle. It's like saying Mexico could take over Texas in a week. I am sure they could beat the TX National Guard, but the US military response would be inevitable.
7962
(11,841 posts)We'll see if "cross border incidents" start becoming an issue
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Trump is the presumptive nominee of a major US political party - who proposes to govern as a strong man, like Putin does. The EU is under severe financial strain, the UK (a major member of the EU) is considering leaving the EU altogether and lawmakers who want to stay in are now the target of assassination attempts, far-right candidates have been making inroads in numerous EU countries, the Middle East is more of a shitshow than usual, and NATO member Turkey is simultaneously frozen out of the EU and being drawn into a hot war in Syria, where Assad is openly baiting Erdogan.
Putin to too smart to invade and face a unified enemy, but the longer he keeps the pressure on the more likely it is that the cracks in the structure of Western democratic institutions will spread and one well-placed blow might be enough to shatter the consensus. The biggest risk of an October surprise this year is Putin doing something that would give Trump a huge boost. It would very much suit Putin to have Trump as President, for 3 reasons:
1. Vladimir Putin strikes me as much, much smarter than Donald Trump. Much as I dislike Putin, I nevertheless have a great deal of respect for him. He is highly intelligent, wise, and focused. Machiavelli would have loved him.
2. Trump proposes to govern as a strong man type and openly admires Putin's style of governance. Trump endlessly talks about his deal making ability, which is the sign of someone who does not want to fight. Trump also aims to emulate Putin by pleasing his domestic population and has little interest in building or maintaining international institutions. If you thought the Bush administration had contempt for the UN, wait until you see how a Trump administration would handle it; Trump doesn't give a shit about the EU or democracy and would probably be quite willing to abandon US commitments to NATO if you ask me. Were I in Putin's position, I would be plotting how to sell a chunk of Siberia (like Russia long ago sold Alaska to the US) because Trump would be so easily distracted by the shiny object and the idea of being the first US President in a long while to gain a new state-sized piece of land.
3. If Trump becomes President there's a small but real chance of the US becoming a dictatorship or experiencing a second civil war or some other equally drastic internal instability. Institutional instability in the US weakens the country, and weakness at the US end means weakness in NATO too. Let's be honest here, if the US were to waver it's not like the European NATO countries would just roll their eyes and jump into war with Putin themselves unless they had no other choice.
It would be very, very easy for Putin to split NATO up under a Trump Presidency. All he needs to say is that America and Russia are great nations, and why would Americans want to risk their happy lives and beautiful cities for the sake of some malcontents in Europe, which many of them fled for America to begin with. Trump won't launch a nuke at Russia and the UK and France don'tave a big enough arsenal to be dangerous unless their own survival is at imminent risk.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)The GOP walked off a cliff this time.
7962
(11,841 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Trump will probably not become President but it is well within the range of possibility. To think otherwise is facile.
I find it depressing how anti-intellectual DU has become in recent years. Such wilful ignorance is dangerous to society.
https://www.sott.net/article/313177-The-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-United-States-Anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-of-America
psychopomp
(4,668 posts)at DU. I don't think it is a recent thing, however. It's been this way for around six years or so. What is worse than the poor quality of conversation, though, is the lockstep group-think that is required when expressing ideas about Sacred Cows at DU. If you hold differing views on topics DU'ers tend to get excited about, you'll be hounded and baited.
That being said, ironically, I was just thinking that your post was one of the more thoughtful reads I'd come across at DU in recent memory. I disagree about Trump, though. He's not dumb, really, he's just twisted. I think he's pretty shrewd, but he's got a few screws loose.
Finally, Russia would never consider sharing a land border with the USA. That is entirely out of the question.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)You went on and on about Trump as if he is a sign of anything other than the fact that Republican primary voters are frightened and angry after getting their view of the world from Fox News and right wing talk radio for years. That is a very small minority of voters. Your doom and gloom narrative about the decline of western civilization is nothing new. To paraphrase Mark Twain's reaction to his own premature obituary, "Reports of the death of western civilization have been greatly exaggerated." I would be truly concerned about the future of the west if they did nothing to oppose the military buildup and expansion of Russia.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Both my parents were born in the middle of WW2. That conflict wasn't supposed to happen, and fascist leadership in the 1930s was regarded as a silly fringe too, until it wasn't. Complacency is symptomatic of the same maiaise.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)A moment ago you were worried it would cause a war. It is more likely, in my view, to prevent one. No complacency involved.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Provide a link where he did.
I have searched this hard and this meme is just a distortion of a comment he made about the breakup of the Soviet Union.
He said the breakup was catastrophic and regrettableevent the way it happened and the impact on their society. Those comments were twisted into the idea that he longs for a return of the old empire or the USSR.
Anyone who visited the region or has paid any attention at all knows that the period right after the breakup was indeed catastrophic. It was almost genocidal in it's effect on particularly the elderly as Russia had little understanding of modern capitalism, was naive, and financial wolves and mafia types descended on the region and working with corrupt nationals created a horrific 10 years.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Oh, And FUCK Putin and his ambitions for the 'ol days-
Fuck Putin and his anti-gay crusades and assholes he has in the street terrorizing people-
And FUCK Putin the DICKTATOR
newthinking
(3,982 posts)I tend toward a reality based world. That means I have travelled and don't have quite so many stereotypes in my head about a number of regions in the world.
If you want to sit at your desk and incorporate somebodies angry agenda into your worldview without researching to find out that the truth is more nuanced than narratives produced by ignorant or biased sources, good for you.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Name one thing that you admire about "The West"
MisterFred
(525 posts)Putin reminiscing about the good 'ole days of USSR as a power doesn't change the fact that he's positioned himself as a Russian Nationalist. You know, the very idea that brought down the USSR! Putin doesn't care about anything but increasing Russian (his own) power.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)He puts the welfare of his country first.
That does not make many of the exaggerations true.
Would he be someone I would want to see as president in my country (US)? No. But not for many of the reasons that the narrative propagandizes as most of those claims are sensational or spreading lies for interests.
I support someone like Bernie. I just happen to have been alerted to the narrative nature of war and conflict reporting and do a lot of research as it seems to me a huge threat to both democracy and our health.
I know that Russia is not a threat to us here and would prefer not to see the media manipulate us into bigotry or worse WWIII.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)I am not going to devolve with you into personality politics.
I am still waiting for someone to provide a link. Of course no one can because their is none. Isn't that important to you?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Keep at it though, you do provide some comic relief for the rest of us!
newthinking
(3,982 posts)especially when you sit on here demanding other members prove themselves to you.
Have the link yet?
psychopomp
(4,668 posts)Why don't you do all thinking people a favor and hush. Grown-ups are talking.
Duval
(4,280 posts)
7962
(11,841 posts)"Biggest mistake i ever made was leaving my wife" would kinda imply you wish you had her back
newthinking
(3,982 posts)you really don't talk deeply with anyone who was in Russia (or the other former regions) in the 90s. It is common knowledge that the economic collapse that followed the break up of the USSR was catastrophic for that region.
If we had an economic collapse as deep as they did I am loath to even think what it would look like.
IF you can...
Close enough
His actions say the rest
MattSh
(3,714 posts)wishes it never went away too. But what the hell does she know. Some American tells me that's wrong and he/she knows better than my wife does.
7962
(11,841 posts)Most of the rest of the world doesnt feel the same
harun
(11,381 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)
But if it is, then no nation on earth could trust us anymore.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Changes all the facts on the ground. A glowing Berlin might bring some sobriety to the european elites.
Steviehh
(115 posts)to counter NATO. Simple as that. Putin is not going to back down.
tell us another Kremlin talking point
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Just a few brain cells.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)John Pilger for CounterPunch
Orlok | Shutterstock.com
Returning to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention. The great counter revolution had begun.
The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”, she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.
“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now don’t you forget it.” So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.
The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”
A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision”. The theme was unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of freedom.
The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war/
newthinking
(3,982 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Only someone with little geopolitical or historical awareness could be impressed by that.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Nitram
(27,749 posts)The red arrows you see are all in place at the invitation of Russia's neighbors to avoid war with Russia by blocking moves to reconstruct the Soviet Union's empire by annexing neighbors one by one.
MisterFred
(525 posts)For example, Russian planes give the Turkish border a WIDE berth now.
Not to mention giving up on incorporating the Donbass into Russia.
Putin just doesn't publicize it when Russia backs down.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Publisize it, the western media would either:
1. Not report it
or
2. Spin it into something sinister
People need to wake up. This isn't about "Putin". It is about the full on distortion of news and manipulation of the masses toward potential war.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)one by one. Russia has annexed Crimea, taken a piece of Georgia and a piece of Ukraine. Without Western sanctions and determination to prevent further land grabs, Russia already would have taken more of eastern Ukraine to build a land bridge to Crimea. Putin has made explicit threats against Poland and other neighbors. Whose side are you on?
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Russia is acting defensively. Of course that is not the narrative.
Foreign Affairs: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
By John J. Mearsheimer
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault
According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.
But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.
Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.
But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)NATO was the aggressor and got Ukraine wrong. Many months later, the media has eventually figured out the truth
Patrick L. Smith
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/new_york_times_propagandists_exposed_finally_the_truth_about_ukraine_and_putin_emerges/
(Credit: AP/Mark Lennihan/Photo montage by Salon)
It has been a long and lonely winter defending the true version of events in Ukraine, but here comes the sun. We now have open acknowledgment in high places that Washington is indeed responsible for this mess, the prime mover, the “aggressor,” and finally this term is applied where it belongs. NATO, once again, is revealed as causing vastly more trouble than it has ever prevented.
We have had, in the last little while, significant analyses of the Ukraine crisis, each employing that method the State Department finds deadly: historical perspective. In a lengthy interview with Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, none other than Henry Kissinger takes Washington carefully but mercilessly to task. “Does one achieve a world order through chaos or through insight?” Dr. K. asks.
Here is one pertinent bit:
KISSINGER. … But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.
SPIEGEL. What was it then?
KISSINGER. One has to ask oneself this question: 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. So one has to ask oneself, Why did it happen?
SPIEGEL. What you’re saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?
KISSINGER. Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.
Interesting. Looking for either insight or honesty in Obama’s White House or in his State Department is a forlorn business, and Kissinger surely knows this. So he is, as always, a cagey critic. But there are numerous things here to consider, and I will come back to them.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Russia is not planning to "invade" Europe. That is a propaganda narrative to hide other player objectives.
I put together this information some time ago:
[font size="2"]To understand how we got to where we are now: You must understand that this effort has been ongoing since at least the beginning of the new century.
The first attempt at affecting "Regime Change" was the orchestration, mostly by neo-cons, of the "Orange Revolution".
The Wests choice in 2004? A man by the name of Victor Yuschenko.
His wife? An American Citizen and Far Right Republican who had worked for the Reagan Administration, had been director at a NeoCon think tank (New Atlantic Initiative) (Victor also worked with this group) and also worked for the far right think tank the Heritage Foundation. "Katherine Chumachenko Yushenko worked in the White House Public Liaison Office where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States.
A very good summary from a post on an older version of DU Tinoire
There are links on the original page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2870381
Ukraine, Yushchenko, his wife (Bush employee), the US and Soros
"After hearing that the NED had pumped $65 million dollars into this election and that his wife was an American citizen, I thought I'd research this a little. I don't know this handsome US-backed Yushchenko but I'm suspecting that he is going to dismantle the Ukraine Boris-Yeltsin style and sell if off to US & European corporate interests. Germany, France and the US already have their deals in place with him over pipelines, utility companies and national resources.
Just thought I'd throw this information out there so that people can see how these things are done and how the media cooperates into presenting these changes as "spontaneous" changes that the US had nothing to do with.
So here we go. First some of the "meddling" that the media hasn't covered and then in my second post, Yushchenko's "dedicated conservative" US State Department wife.
$61 million for the Ukraine elections to back Yushchenko and $100,000 to the Tsunami victims. Just shameful.
==========================================================
Bush Adminstration Spent $65 Million to Help Opposition in Ukraine
December 10, 2004
By: Matt Kelley
Associated Press
Printer Friendly Version
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election.
(snip)
But officials acknowledge some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate — people who now call themselves part of the Orange revolution.
For example, one group that got grants through U.S.-funded foundations is the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, whose Web site has a link to Yushchenko's home page under the heading "partners." Another project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development brought a Center for Political and Legal Reforms official to Washington last year for a three-week training session on political advocacy.
(snip)
The four foundations involved included three funded by the U.S. government: The National Endowment for Democracy, which gets its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which gets money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation, part of a network of charities funded by billionaire George Soros that gets money from the State Department. Other countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Grants from groups funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development also went to the International Center for Policy Studies, a think tank that includes Yushchenko on its supervisory board. The board also includes several current or former advisers to Kuchma, however.
IRI, Craner's Republican-backed group, used U.S. money to help Yushchenko arrange meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney , Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and GOP leaders in Congress in February 2003.
(snip)
the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. (note: Very hawkish / Dan Quayle is one of their trustees / other names just as disturbing: http://www.freedomhouse.org/aboutfh/bod.htm )
PAUCI then sent U.S. government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Center for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the U.S. government through PAUCI. On its Web site, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros' Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board!
(reluctant snip)
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the U.S. government "for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide." According to the organization's Web site, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.
(snip)
Note from the USAID page on Ukraine: "Beyond the power sector, USAID plans to identify and assist in removing the obstacles of proper market functioning in other segments of the energy sector such as the privatization of the oil and gas transportation systems."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040826143304/http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ee/ua/121-0150.html
==================
Yushenko administration lost the presidency 15 months later:
Notably, one of the things that lost him the Presidency only 15 months later was his turn toward the same brand of extreme nationalism. He elevated Stephen Bandera, (a very controversial figure who is revered by extreme factions that Europe and others warned were tied to Social Nationalist Fascist groups) to "Hero" status.
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/feb/24/a-fascist-hero-in-democratic-kiev/
[/font]
Cayenne
(480 posts)Some of the NATO mobilizations are meant to scare the Russians out of Syria but it is not going to work.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)bucolic_frolic
(55,140 posts)Is he in bed with Putin?
Javaman
(65,711 posts)Putin would need a lot more spray tanner since he is always taking his shirt off...
Javaman
(65,711 posts)
Scientific
(314 posts)I mean, we don't want to squander our tax dollars on roads, bridges, schools, parks or any of that crap.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Canada is not a big player in the MIC, so the money aspect isn't a real motivation. This leaves the possibility that the threat is real and should be taken seriously.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)The only real material part that is actually a Canadian government document is an intelligence analysis discussing capabilities ***if Russia went to war***.
This is a very good example of war narrative writing that is filling our press and this particular one is not so well done and exposes itself.
eppur_se_muova
(41,942 posts)Haaretz owner Amos Schocken has written an open letter appealing for online subscribers. Not surprising considering that Haaretz’s circulation is as low as a 6.1% market share of Israeli print media according to market research carried out for the last half of 2013.
Put simply, the views of Haaretz are utterly unrepresentative of the Israeli public and political system at large. Yet, Haaretz is still considered to be the paper of note by outsiders who consider it to be the Israeli equivalent of the New York Times (no surprise then that Haaretz has embellished this image through a partnership arrangement with the NY Times as the publisher of the Times’ international edition).
Schocken urges readers to subscribe to Haaretz’s website. In contrast to a journalistic mission statement, this is how he promotes his paper:
By doing so, you will become a partner in the ongoing effort to shape Israel as a liberal and constitutional democracy that cherishes the values of pluralism and civil and human rights. You will become a partner in actively supporting the two-state solution and the right to Palestinian self-determination, which will enable Israel to rid itself of the burdens of territorial occupation and the control of another people.
Schocken also claims:
To put it plainly: If news is coming out of Israel, it is coming from Haaretz more often than not, and if views are sparking controversy, debate and reflection throughout the Middle East or the Jewish world, they either came from Haaretz or are playing themselves out in our op-eds, comments and blogs.
In this he is correct. Despite its low circulation, Haaretz is the newspaper of choice for foreign journalists, commentators and political figures, many of whom share parts of the same agenda as stated by Schoken. While there is nothing wrong in this by itself, Haaretz has taken its agenda-driven mission to an entirely new level, particularly through the reach of its English-language website, which it uses to push its agenda far beyond Israel’s borders. Indeed, Haaretz has, in the past, demonstrated that it is more concerned with its international audience than its domestic Israeli one. Haaretz, unable to exercise any meaningful influence on domestic politics uses its English-language website and print newspaper to encourage external pressure on Israel.
***
more: http://honestreporting.com/haaretz-admits-its-politicized-agenda/
newthinking
(3,982 posts)If you read carefully you can see the OP is clearly a propaganda piece and not coming from the Canadian government but from some "think tank" that is not even identified.
*"the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported" (some talking head?)
*"based on research by outsiders rather than its own assessment" (Political "think Tank says"
*"report released last winter by the American think tank the Rand Corporation"
*"according to published reports in Europe," the CBC said." (someone said that someone else said)
*" the Canadian broadcaster noted" (some political talking head said)
*"The prevailing wisdom is... the Canadian broadcaster said"
uhnope
(6,419 posts)from your own link (which is a jingoistic pressure-group that has been responsible for organizing mass hate-mail harassment of those who support liberal causes in Israel)
eppur_se_muova
(41,942 posts)It's Israeli politics. Non-biased sources are scarcer than virgin births.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)try harder next time
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Dismissing Haaretz for being too liberal is an odd argument to make on a Democratic discussion forum.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Stupid is not one of them. Russia does not have the military or economic power to go to war with the west with any hope of success. This is more severe saber rattling - a large pissing contest, but a pissing contest nonetheless. We'll exchange threats and insults for a while, engage in propaganda warfare, various intelligence activities and so on... but...
The only real chance for a victory for the Russians in an actual war would be through the use of nuclear weapons - which brings us to MAD. Mutually assured destruction. None of the players in this particular game really want that. Putin is hungry for power, wealth, resources - influence. He is not though, stupid enough or crazy enough to engage in something that would leave his Country in ashes.
He will attempt to bring more Nations under Russian authority, expand his borders and so on... but he will not risk an actual war with the US and it's allies. Not yet... I don't think.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he is stupid enough and crazy enough to do that, but I highly doubt it. This is a man with intellect and experience (even KGB experience) - he is a formidable opponent in part because he knows what he can and cannot do. I can't imagine that the Russian people would support a war with the west, either. Those who know enough to know what that would look like... do not want it.
I do think we could engage in stronger diplomacy, perhaps convince Russia that there is more wealth to be gained through friendship... but war? Only if they want to see mushroom clouds rising over their cities - and ours.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)His drive to recreate Greater Russia may blind him to realities.
If this is just saber rattling, we should all remember that saber rattling is inherently dangerous. It takes only a single miscalculation or accident to bring a war.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)polands a very poor country, will not take much to create local trouble. Similar to how 'local trouble' set the Ukraine invasion in motion.
MisterFred
(525 posts)That is already mobilizing paramilitary forces. 'Local hooligans' aren't going to do anything but get smashed.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)MisterFred
(525 posts)He can't magically get what he wants whenever he wants through a magic tactic no one can ever counter.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
MisterFred
(525 posts)I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant to respond to a different post.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)and to create a coup as happened in Ukraine.
This was the SECOND attempt by the INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE to replace the government in Ukraine.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)[font size="2"]To understand how we got to where we are now: You must understand that this effort has been ongoing since at least the beginning of the new century.
The first attempt at affecting "Regime Change" was the orchestration, mostly by neo-cons, of the "Orange Revolution".
The Wests choice in 2004? A man by the name of Victor Yuschenko.
His wife? An American Citizen and Far Right Republican who had worked for the Reagan Administration, had been director at a NeoCon think tank (New Atlantic Initiative) (Victor also worked with this group) and also worked for the far right think tank the Heritage Foundation. "Katherine Chumachenko Yushenko worked in the White House Public Liaison Office where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States.
A very good summary from a post on an older version of DU Tinoire
There are links on the original page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2870381
Ukraine, Yushchenko, his wife (Bush employee), the US and Soros
"After hearing that the NED had pumped $65 million dollars into this election and that his wife was an American citizen, I thought I'd research this a little. I don't know this handsome US-backed Yushchenko but I'm suspecting that he is going to dismantle the Ukraine Boris-Yeltsin style and sell if off to US & European corporate interests. Germany, France and the US already have their deals in place with him over pipelines, utility companies and national resources.
Just thought I'd throw this information out there so that people can see how these things are done and how the media cooperates into presenting these changes as "spontaneous" changes that the US had nothing to do with.
So here we go. First some of the "meddling" that the media hasn't covered and then in my second post, Yushchenko's "dedicated conservative" US State Department wife.
$61 million for the Ukraine elections to back Yushchenko and $100,000 to the Tsunami victims. Just shameful.
==========================================================
Bush Adminstration Spent $65 Million to Help Opposition in Ukraine
December 10, 2004
By: Matt Kelley
Associated Press
Printer Friendly Version
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election.
(snip)
But officials acknowledge some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate — people who now call themselves part of the Orange revolution.
For example, one group that got grants through U.S.-funded foundations is the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, whose Web site has a link to Yushchenko's home page under the heading "partners." Another project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development brought a Center for Political and Legal Reforms official to Washington last year for a three-week training session on political advocacy.
(snip)
The four foundations involved included three funded by the U.S. government: The National Endowment for Democracy, which gets its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which gets money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation, part of a network of charities funded by billionaire George Soros that gets money from the State Department. Other countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Grants from groups funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development also went to the International Center for Policy Studies, a think tank that includes Yushchenko on its supervisory board. The board also includes several current or former advisers to Kuchma, however.
IRI, Craner's Republican-backed group, used U.S. money to help Yushchenko arrange meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney , Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and GOP leaders in Congress in February 2003.
(snip)
the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. (note: Very hawkish / Dan Quayle is one of their trustees / other names just as disturbing: http://www.freedomhouse.org/aboutfh/bod.htm )
PAUCI then sent U.S. government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Center for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the U.S. government through PAUCI. On its Web site, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros' Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board!
(reluctant snip)
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the U.S. government "for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide." According to the organization's Web site, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.
(snip)
Note from the USAID page on Ukraine: "Beyond the power sector, USAID plans to identify and assist in removing the obstacles of proper market functioning in other segments of the energy sector such as the privatization of the oil and gas transportation systems."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040826143304/http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ee/ua/121-0150.html
==================
Yushenko administration lost the presidency 15 months later:
Notably, one of the things that lost him the Presidency only 15 months later was his turn toward the same brand of extreme nationalism. He elevated Stephen Bandera, (a very controversial figure who is revered by extreme factions that Europe and others warned were tied to Social Nationalist Fascist groups) to "Hero" status.
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/feb/24/a-fascist-hero-in-democratic-kiev/
[/font]
Throd
(7,208 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)The New York Times' Orwellian View of Ukraine
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31565-the-new-york-times-orwellian-view-of-ukraine
At the center of the Times’ propaganda on Ukraine has been its uncritical – indeed its anti-journalistic – embrace of the Ukrainians coup-makers in late 2013 and early 2014 as they collaborated with neo-Nazi militias to violently overthrow elected President Viktor Yanukovych and hurl Ukraine into a bloody civil war.
Rather than display journalistic professionalism, the Times’ propagandists ignored the evidence of a coup – including an intercepted phone call in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussed how to “mid-wife” the regime change and handpick the new leaders. “Yats is the guy,” declared Nuland, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who emerged as prime minister.
The Times even ignored a national security expert, Statfor founder George Friedman, when he termed the ouster of Ukraine’s elected president “the most blatant coup in history.” The Times just waved a magic wand and pronounced that there was no coup – and anyone who thought so must reside inside “the Russian propaganda bubble.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]
Perhaps even more egregiously, the Times has pretended that there were no neo-Nazi militias spearheading the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and then leading the bloody “anti-terrorist operation” against ethnic Russians in the south and east who resisted the coup. The Times explained all this bloodshed as simply “Russian aggression.”
newthinking
(3,982 posts)The Telegraph
By Tom Parfitt, Urzuf
Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels
The fighters of the Azov battalion lined up in single file to say farewell to their fallen comrade. His pallid corpse lay under the sun in an open casket trimmed with blue velvet.
Some of the men placed carnations by the body, others roses. Many struck their chests with a closed fist before touching their dead friend’s arm. One fighter had an SS tattoo on his neck.
Sergiy Grek, 22, lost a leg and died from massive blood loss after a radio-controlled anti-tank mine exploded near to him.
As Ukraine’s armed forces tighten the noose around pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country, the western-backed government in Kiev is throwing militia groups – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle.
The Azov battalion has the most chilling reputation of all. Last week, it came to the fore as it mounted a bold attack on the rebel redoubt of Donetsk, striking deep into the suburbs of a city under siege.
The Azov battalion uses the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf''s Hook) symbol on its banner (Tom Parfitt)
Full story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I still think Poland is next, they're a very poor country, never really recovered from the nazis.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)Their political leaders complaining about NATO troop size have a lot of nerve! If they are worried about troop size they should increase their troops.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)moment in Russia. Sure, thousands will die but I just don''t see it happening. I see a return to detente with Russian Oligarchs fleeing their country with their billions before the doors close. They already own too much in the USA and will not want it confiscated. The US will gladly have them.
Of course I am not a policy wonk, I only play one on DU.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)As I've said here before, mistrust of the Russians is one of my three conservative outliers.
Duval
(4,280 posts)And it's dangerous.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Only a tiny percentage of Russia's border even has NATO members. About 6%. Russia has 14 countries on its border, and only five belong to NATO. Russia can hardly complain about Kosovo or Afghanistan because, as a member of the UN Security Council, they approved the UN mandate to have NATO there.
6%? Doesn't sound like "a build up around Russia".
Response to uhnope (Original post)
Post removed