Monday 25th of May 2020

"let them eat cookies"...


In late 2014, Nuland admitted that the US had spent a total of $5 billion for 'democracy promotion' efforts in Ukraine since 1991, something Russian officials speculated was a code term for regime change efforts. The assistant secretary of state brushed off the allegations, telling CNN that "that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong, democratic government." She even denied that the money had been spent supporting the Maidan protests, calling them and the coup that followed a "spontaneous movement."

Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and several influential Washington-based think tanks. Kagan angrily left the Republican Party in 2016 and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Clinton handpicked Nuland for assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs post during her own tenure as Secretary of State. 


Speaking to Radio Sputnik, political scientist Alexander Konkov explained that "for Russia, the post-Soviet countries and the countries of Eastern Europe, Victoria Nuland's departure was symbolic." In fact, he said, Nuland's exit "signifies the famous promise of the new president of the United States to stop exporting democracy. In other words, the US must have a more pragmatic policy – not focused, as in previous years, on the export of so-called democratic values."

Nuland, Konkov noted, is seen "as a rather odious figure, and I think that her image, even long after her departure, will long be associated with interference in the internal affairs of other states." 

"Her image passing out cookies on Maidan Square will be remembered for a long time," the expert added.

read more:

points and counterpoints - the US interfered in ukraine...


Washington's Cloned Female Warmongers

By Finian Cunningham

February 09, 2014 "Information Clearing House -  


What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender. But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.

Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel eye.

Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.

We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from afar.

But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k the EU."

What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt for international law and norms.

Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle for a brain.

Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose and moronic than her male American peers.

Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.

Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.

Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.

"Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.

The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran: "What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments, or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp up new sanctions."

read more:




It can be said that the program of interference in Ukraine was a long planned affair, started 20 years before to "kill off" the relationship between Russia and Ukraine: Some hawkish publication would call the $5 BILLIONS spent by the US in Ukraine as as "democratic development fund" designed to, well, influence opposition to the government of Ukraine, until the "revolution of 2014"...





Obama "spends $5 billion paying Ukrainians to riot and dismantle their democratically elected government."

So is there any truth to this claim? PunditFact dove in.

The roots

The claim is rooted in a December 2013 speech by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, a non-governmental agency that promotes democracy in the former Soviet republic.

Nuland had returned days earlier from her third trip to Ukraine in five weeks to assess the protests over President Viktor Yanukovych’s policies to move away from the European Union, she said.

She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight and spoke of how she met with Yanukovych, pressing him to end the pushback from Ukrainian security forces because it is "absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state."

She described how American taxpayer money has supported Ukraine’s democratic development despite the country’s challenges.

"Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations," she said. "We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."

Her eight-minute speech (video) attracted little to no media attention.

The truth

We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union?

The State Department said yes.

"The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.

Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.

About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction,Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).

Read more:


Meanwhile the Soros media was going full steam into supporting the revolt against the government of Ukraine:


The trump connection on the other side:


KIEV, Ukraine — Paul J. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, recently filed financial reports with the Justice Department showing that his lobbying firm earned nearly $17 million for two years of work for a Ukrainian political party with links to the Kremlin.

Curiously, that was more than the party itself reported spending in the same period for its entire operation — the national political organization’s expenses, salaries, printing outlays and other incidentals.

The discrepancies show a lot about how Mr. Manafort’s clients — former President Viktor F. Yanukovych of Ukraine and his Party of Regions — operated.

And in a broader sense, they underscore the dangers that lurk for foreigners who, tempted by potentially rich payoffs, cast their lot with politicians in countries that at best have different laws about money in politics, and at worst are, like Ukraine in those years, irredeemably corrupt.

Mr. Yanukovych was driven from office in the Maidan Revolution of 2014, after having stolen, according to the current Ukrainian government, at least $1 billion. In the years before his fall, Mr. Manafort took lavish payments to burnish the image of Mr. Yanukovych and the Party of Regions in Washington, even as the party acknowledged only very modest spending.

read more:


Overall, the US spent far more cash to destabilise ("democratize") Ukraine in favour of the US than to help the Ukrainian make their own mind organically. We need to know that the result of the US cash is to have given Neo-Nazi power in that country (Hitler welcome). At this level Putin is right to call the new government of Kiev a bunch of thugs who to say the least are acting with impunity that would not be acceptable in the US nor any other democracy. The ethnic mix of Ukraine is far more pronounced than that of Irish, Scottish or Welsh in the UK. It is far more pronounced than the Flemish and Walloon in Belgium or the Catalonians in Spain. But the new government, installed by the US to serve the US interests, has no desires to cater for these differences. Hence the separatists (mostly ethnic Russians) in Donbass and the "natural" Crimean secession. 

"Mr. Yanukovych was driven from office in the Maidan Revolution of 2014, after having stolen, according to the current Ukrainian government, at least $1 billion."

There is no proof that Yanukovych stole "one billion", but the Soros media did spin this "theft" as a reality in order to add to the US sauce.




high-capitalist biscuits...

Earlier, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia warned that US humanitarian aid destined for the Latin American country may be "just a trap to be followed by a military invasion."

Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton has taken to Twitter to speak about US aid assistance for Venezuelans in the form of "High-Energy Biscuits packed with vitamins  and minerals," which he said were being airlifted to Colombia from Indonesia. 

The tweet, coming on the heels of promises by self-proclaimed Venezuelan interim president Juan Guaido that Western humanitarian aid would enter Venezuela next week, also comes amid opposition plans to hold an "international conference" in Washington on Thursday to attract humanitarian assistance.

The tweet was spread widely on social media, with users questioning why Bolton needed to be so specific about "biscuits" and warning that the US "aid" should be checked for weapons. Some feared the promised aid may be a prelude to invasion and blasted the national security adviser for "pretending to care" about Venezuela's children.


Read more:




Read from top...

fighting the propaganda blitz...

from Paula Densnow


A quick Google search of “social media fake news” brought up thousands of hits, and, as I expected, they seemed to be dated from 2016 to today.  I recalled that the propaganda blitz started around the 2016 election, and my search confirmed that recollection.

Ironically, a Google search with those words will likely not be censored by Google, since the ruling Establishment is solidly behind the project to convince people that they should distrust  and abandon social media, and return to the comforting fold of the legacy media, now self-proclaimed the “legitimate media”.

More aptly named the imperial media, it beams the message of the ruling elites vertically, top down, into each house or car.   The citizens receive the message passively, and  have no way to catch errors, or share their skepticism or opinions with others.

90% of the “legitimate media”, TV, radio, magazines, web news and newspapers are owned by 5 mega-corporations, so you know they must be trustworthy, right?

Starting in 2016, the alarm bells of “too much Wild West freedom” have been rung in almost every one of those 90% outlets, as well as by major politicians, including Congress,  President Obama and would-be president, Hilary Clinton, (who spends a great deal of time bitterly making lists of those who she believes caused her failure).

In the spring of 2017, many alternative news websites began noticing that their reader numbers were falling precipitously.   Google had agreed to set up protocols to steer people away from those websites, in the name of countering “fake news”.   A list drawn up by a sketchy group called PropOrNot was relied upon, although many of the best news sites on the internet were included, some founded by ex-journalists, including prize winning journalists,  who had been fired from the “legitimate media” for failing to follow the imperial script.

In the following spring, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg was hauled in front of Congress for two days of grilling and lecturing, while the Congress members extorted a promise from him that censorship on Facebook would be ramped up.

And that is what happened to me.  I have been on Facebook since 2009.  I only joined to keep tabs on my son, who never wrote and never called.  As it turned out, he never posted either, but I quickly learned that Facebook was a great place to make friends all over the country and the world, and was very good for learning news and events that would never make it onto our self-proclaimed legit media. 

It was also good for sharing skepticism of said media with other people, and countless times my friends would point out discrepancies, inconsistencies and laughable lapses of logic in the Official Stories of many events.  And yes, the laughing was important.  Hilarious memes were spread to highlight the utter ridiculousness of our leaders and their media stories and narratives.   (This widespread ridicule might be why our rulers are so fixated on stopping memes from being shared).

So, after 9 years on Facebook, I suddenly was targeted by the censors.  Starting last winter, I would be scrolling along on Facebook, as I had been for years, and suddenly, there would appear an announcement that I had violated “community standards”.    My first jail sentence was for 24 hours, the next was for 3 days, and I am now doing a fifth 30-day stretch in the hole since last December.

What “community” was this, that was so offended by my posts and comments?  Apparently, it is the “international community” our rulers tell us are so important.

I got two sentences for pointing out that the US had backed a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that has open Nazis involved, and posting a picture of some of them, posing with NATO and SS flags.


Yes, the US spent $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government, according to Victoria Nuland, who should know, since she was there, passing out cookies and picking the next dictator.

“Yats! Yats is the guy”.

Now Ukraine has open Nazis in the government, glorifying their Nazi ancestors, killing over 10,000 civilians in eastern Ukraine, and attacking gays, Russians, Roma and political opponents in the rest of Ukraine.

But we’re supposed to send those brutal Nazis more weapons?

On what planet is that a good idea?



“The community” was quite offended by that statement.

  • Save

The first 30-day sentence was then extended another 30 days for a crime of posting I had somehow managed to commit even though I hadn’t been able to log in to Facebook at all those first 30 days.  

This sentence was served with access to my Facebook page, i.e. I could see my page, but was unable to post, comment, “like” or message.   The ensuing jail sentences have all been like this.  I can see my page, but I cannot engage with anyone.

My next crime was posting about a couple in England who had been arrested, imprisoned and lost their baby for the crime of naming him Adolf and being Nazi sympathizers. They had committed no actual crimes. How is it possible that pointing out that there are NATO-backed Nazis in Ukraine is verboten, but also that calling for freedom of speech and ideas, even for Nazis, is also verboten?  

Does the community support armed Nazis in the Ukrainian government, but oppose unarmed parents in the UK who name their baby Adolf?  Where is the logic in that?  (I need a meme for this).

My next two sentences were for comments, not posts.  They were on different friends’ posts, 40 days apart, but both were for the crime of pointing out that it was easy to tell who listens to the imperial media, because they repeat the dominant narrative verbatim, as if it were their very own thoughts, carefully considered and crafted.

Because I can see my page, I have noted that many of my Facebook friends assume that my bans are because one of my friends has turned me in to the authorities.  The advice of many people is to distrust my friends, preemptively block people for my safety and to only post to a limited audience.

I am inclined to dismiss this theory.  The fact that we went through 2 ½ years of anti-social media propaganda, the fact that Facebook openly vowed to censor, the fact that thousands of censors were added and the Atlantic Council was hired to help, seems to be a more reliable guide to my constant bans than the belief that my friends suddenly turned treacherous after 9 years.

Recall that our overlords are skilled at disrupting movements.  We know that part of the 1960s CointelPro program was a campaign to sow mistrust and paranoia between comrades, and the FBI would send letters accusing people of sabotage and infidelity, to rupture long standing friendships and alliances. 

I see no reason to doubt that this strategy of sudden bannings, with no reason given, no complainer named, or recourse allowed, is deliberate. They want us to withdraw from social media, or at least, to limit the number of people with whom we interact.

The uncertainty about what constitutes community standards, the randomness of the targeting, the inability to appeal, all contribute to a climate of  fear among Facebook users which make people hesitant to post on certain subjects and share certain stories, even if the sites on not on Facebook’s official banned list of sites.  This, combined with the actual removal of thousands of people for 30 day sentences, shuts down free and open discourse.

The destruction of the horizontal communication between the people of the world made possible by the flowering of social media is to be resisted. We need to hold clear the principle that we have the right to share information, news and opinions without censorship or discrimination. 

Social media platforms are privately owned, but they have a natural monopoly that cannot be replicated, and they are a common carrier of the kind that should be recognized as subject to laws forbidding discrimination or censoring.  They are the new town square, and everyone needs to have equal access to the soap boxes.



Read more:




Read from top


See also: a message from sergueï lavrov in forgetting history.... or rewriting it according to a bad memory... or simply bad will...

the nuland lies connection...

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower [leading to the impeachment inquiry of Trump], was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.

That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy.




Meanwhile, looped into email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland.

At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower. Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

On Sunday, Trump responded to press reports naming Ciaramella, calling him a “radical” known for his close ties to Brennan and Rice.

“Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower,” Trump told reporters. “If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy.”

Trump added, “And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.


Read more:


Read from top.

flushing the whistleblower's partisan allegiances...

Eric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, was a guest of Vice President Joe Biden at a glitzy lunch in October 2016 to honor the prime minister of Italy.

Biden co-hosted the banquet with former Secretary of State John Kerry for then-Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Ciaramella, who is of Italian heritage, was among the U.S. officials who accepted an invitation. This week, the Washington Examiner reported that Ciaramella is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council, reporting to the director of national intelligence.

Ciaramella, a career CIA analyst, was Ukraine director on the National Security Council during the end of the Obama administration and remained there during the early months of the Trump administration, when he was briefly acting senior director for European and Russian affairs. He is now accused of being the official who filed a complaint about a July 25 phone call in which President Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a conspiracy theory regarding CrowdStrike and investigate Biden, a Democratic candidate for president in 2020, in relation to his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine. 

The complaint sparked concerns about potential abuse of power and led to impeachment proceedings in the Democrat-controlled House in which witnesses have said they believe Trump held out on meeting with Zelensky and congressionally-approved military aid in exchange for political favors.


Read more:


See also:


Read from top.


PLEASE note, we're not trying to save Trump from his stupidity, but we are TRYING TO SAVE THE DEMOCRATS FROM BEING EVEN MORE STUPID... which is difficult — but they are doing a good job at it, as the dirt is flying in both directions... Joe Biden is finished as a credible person.