Joe Biden heeft al lang toegegeven dat hij Oekraïne onder druk zette een openbaar aanklager te ontslaan die zijn zoon vervolgde

In het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Joe Lauria, gepubliceerd op Consortium News en door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media, wordt onder meer gemeld dat Biden al een aantal jaren geleden, toen hij onder Obama vicepresident was, heeft toegegeven de Oekraïense regering onder druk te hebben gezet om een openbaar aanklager te ontslaan, 'toevallig' was die aanklager bezig met een corruptie zaak bij het bedrijf Burisma, waar de zoon van Biden (Hunter) een achterlijk hoog salaris verdiende, maar liefst 50.000 dollar per maand...... De druk bestond eruit zoals je wellicht weet, dat Oekraïne een miljard aan oorlogstuig zou mislopen als men niet gehoorzaamde.......

Eén verschil met de hysterie bij de reguliere media in de VS (die eerder Oekraïne onder de corrupte neonazi Porosjenko door dik en dun steunden) is het feit dat dit totaal geen nieuws is..... Als het om het 'buitenlandbeleid' van de VS gaat, was er geen administratie die niet ongehoorzame landen (ongehoorzaam aan de VS) onder druk zette met de dreiging dat men verdere hulp van de VS kon vergeten, of dat de handel met zo'n land zou worden stopgezet, of zelfs een dreiging met een coup of oorlog.......... 

Het buitenlandbeleid van de VS: -chantage, -manipuleren van verkiezingen en -opstanden op poten zetten met de bedoeling dat deze tot een coup leiden (waar de VS bij helpt of zelfs de regie neemt als een coup bijvoorbeeld door het leger van een bepaald land wordt uitgevoerd). Als dit alles niet werkt staat de weg open om een land aan te vallen, meestal nadat zo´n land al economisch aan de grond is geraakt door illegale sancties van de VS (zie Venezuela en Iran)... Ook maakt de VS veelvuldig gebruik van false flag operaties als reden voor het binnenvallen van een land, voorbeelden te over........

Waar men al helemaal niet over lult is het feit dat Biden mede aan de wieg stond van de opstand en coup tegen de democratisch gekozen Oekraïense president Janoekovytsj, een opstand opgezet door hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton toen zij minister van buitenlandse zaken was onder Obama...... Clinton stak maar liefst 4 miljard dollar aan belastinggeld in de opstand en coup in Oekraïne...... Ook de regie tijdens de opstand in Oekraïne was van VS hand (CIA), dat tevens zorgde voor het geweld dat werd gebruikt op het Maidanplein, geweld dat vervolgens in de schoenen van Janoekovytsj werd geschoven, ofwel ook dat was een false flag operatie van de VS......

Janoekovytsj moest weg van de VS, daar hij weigerde in het keurslijf van de EU te stappen en daarmee de economie een enorme slag toe te brengen, terwijl hij een uiterst lucratieve deal met Rusland kon sluiten......

Lees over het zoveelste staaltje smeerpijperij van de VS, of beter gezegd terreur van de VS:

The Untold Story of the Trump-Ukraine Scandal

September 28, 2019 at 6:09 pm

Written by Consortium News

(CN) — The most crucial aspects of the Trump-Ukraine “scandal,” which has led to impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, are not being told, even by Republicans.

Trump was very likely motivated by politics if he indeed withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Kiev launching an investigation into Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden, though the transcript of the call released by the White House between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelinsky does not make certain such a quid-pro-quo.

But what’s not being talked about in the mainstream is the context of this story, which shows that, politics aside, Biden should indeed be investigated in both Ukraine and in the United States.

We know from the leaked, early 2014 telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, that then Vice President Biden played a role in “midwifing” the U.S.-backed overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government soon after that conversation.

That’s the biggest crime in this story that isn’t being told. The illegal overthrow of a sovereign government.

As booty from the coup, the sitting vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, soon got a seat on the board of Ukraine’s biggest gas producer, Burisma Holdings. This can only be seen as a transparently neocolonial maneuver to take over a country and install one’s own people. But Biden’s son wasn’t the only one.

A family friend of then Secretary of State John Kerry also joined Burisma’s board. U.S. agricultural giant Monsanto got a Ukrainian contract soon after the overthrow.  And the first, post-coup Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen, a former State Department official, who was given Ukrainian citizenship the day before she took up the post.

After a Ukrainian prosecutor began looking into possible corruption at Burisma, Biden openly admitted at a conference last year that as vice president he withheld a $1 billion credit line to Ukraine until the government fired the prosecutor. As Biden says himself, it took only six hours for it to happen.

Exactly what Biden boasted of doing is what the Democrats are now accusing Trump of doing, and it isn’t clear if Trump got what he wanted as Biden did.

Threats, Bribes and Blackmail

That leads to another major part of this story not being told: the routine way the U.S. government conducts foreign policy: with bribes, threats and blackmail.

Trump may have withheld military aid to seek a probe into Biden, but it is hypocritically being framed by Democrats as an abuse of power out of the ordinary. But it is very much ordinary.

Examples abound. The threat of withholding foreign aid was wielded against nations on the UN Security Council in 1991 when the U.S. sought authorization for the First Gulf War. Yemen had the temerity to vote against. A member of the U.S. delegation told Yemen’s ambassador: “That’s the most expensive vote you ever cast.” The U.S. then cut $70 million in foreign aid to the Middle East’s poorest nation, and Saudi Arabia repatriated about a million Yemeni workers.

The same thing happened before the Second Gulf War in 2003, as revealed by whistleblower Katharine Gun (who will appear Friday night on CN Live!). Gun leaked an NSA memo that showed the U.S. sought help from its British counterpart in signals intelligence to spy on the missions of Security Council members to get “leverage” over them to influence their vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

In 2001 the U.S. threatened the end of military and foreign aid if nations did not conclude bilateral agreements granting immunity to U.S. troops before the International Criminal Court.

More recently, the U.S. used its muscle against Ecuador, including dangling a $10 billion IMF loan, in exchange for the expulsion of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from its London embassy.

This is how the U.S. conducts “diplomacy.”

As former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali wrote:

“Coming from a developing country, I was trained extensively in international law and diplomacy and mistakenly assumed that the great powers, especially the United States, also trained their representatives in diplomacy and accepted the value of it. But the Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States. Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness.”

This fundamental corruption of U.S. foreign policy, which includes overthrowing elected governments, is matched only by the corruption of a political system that exalts partisan political power above all else. Exposing this deep-seated and longstanding corruption should take precedence over scoring partisan scalps, whether Biden’s or Trump’s.

By Joe Lauria / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

=======================================
Zie ook:
'VS burgers zijn gewaarschuwd: Rusland kan hun hersenen hacken en laten geloven dat Joe Biden niet geschikt is als president'

'Nieuwe Russische hack samenzweringstheorie t.a.v. Joe Biden 'schokt' VS Democraten' 

'Hunter Biden zit in de Oekraïense 'witwas val'' 

'Snowden vindt het ongelofelijk dat de media VS politici niet aanspreken op totaal verschillende reacties n.a.v. 'klokkenluiden''

'Joe Biden (ex-vicepresident VS) heeft zichzelf fiks in de Oekraïense staart gebeten'

'Oekraïne, een mislukte, corrupte en fascistische staat........' (o.a. met aandacht voor Biden en zijn zoon)

'VS stelt Duitsland een ultimatum (chantage): geen Russisch gas via NS2 anders volgt een handelsoorlog.....' Chantage o.a. ten behoeve van het Oekraïense bedrijf Burisma waar Hunter Biden voor werkt. Intussen heeft Trump aangekondigd dat de bedrijven, o.a. een deels Nederlands bedrijf, die blijven meewerken aan Nord Stream 2 (NS2) gesanctioneerd zullen worden..... Zie voorts: 'Donald 'Darth Vader' Trump verklaart ruimte tot oorlogsgebied en laat Duitsland en haar bedrijven weten dat men zich heeft te schikken naar de VS wensen' 

'De Krim het echte verhaal: geen annexatie maar de vrijwillige aansluiting bij Rusland, zelfs Oekraïners stemden voor'

'Oekraïne: opnieuw neonazi protesten op Maidanplein, vanwege Rusland vriendelijk handelen door president Zelensky'

Voor meer berichten over Biden of Oekraïne, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

Oekraïne, wat de reguliere (massa-) media, 'deskundigen' en politici u niet vertellen over dit door een junta geregeerd land

Mint Press News publiceerde gisteren een lang artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi over Oekraïne en wat de massamedia (zogenaamd onafhankelijk) u niet vertellen. Dezelfde media die keer op keer volhouden dat Rusland de VS presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit-referendum, het onafhankelijkheidsreferendum van Catalonië enz. hebben gemanipuleerd, zonder daar ook maar één steekhoudend bewijs voor te leveren.

Voor die zogenaamde Russische bemoeienis wordt ook het beest Trump als mededader genoemd, terwijl we telkens weer zien, dat Trump allesbehalve een pro-Russische beleid voert, iets dat Shahtahmasebi in het volgende artikel uit en te na bewijst.

In het artikel o.a. De volgende feiten:

• De door de VS georganiseerde opstand in Oekraïne, die tot de succesvolle staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj moest leiden en leidde, waarna de VS een door haar gewilde junta installeerde (met bewijzen van gesprekken daarover tussen Nuland (staatssecretaris BuZa onder Obama) en Pyatt, destijds ambassadeur voor de VS in Oekraïne ..... Overigens was de VS al vanaf 2011 bezig met de voorbereidingen tot die opstand, onder eindverantwoording van Hillary Clinton (en Obama), de toenmalige minister van Buitenlandse Zaken. Deze coup en de voorbereidingen heeft de VS meer dan 4 miljard dollar gekost...... Intussen is duidelijk geworden dat Porosjenko ongelofelijk corrupt is en er intussen nog geen 15% van de bevolking achter deze juntaleider staat.........
• De VS levert zware wapens aan Oekraïne, waarmee de VS de 'burgeroorlog' in Oekraïne verder aanwakkert en Rusland voor het blok zet.... Immers de burgers in Oost-Oekraïne, die niet wensen te leven onder de neonazi-dictatuur van Porosjenko, worden al een paar jaar gebombardeerd door de neonazi-bataljons van Porosjenko. Rusland zou vechten in Oekraïne, een belachelijke weergave van de werkelijkheid >> wanneer dit een feit zou zijn, waren deze neonazi-bataljons al lang het gebied uit gewerkt. Met deze nieuwe VS wapens wordt het steeds moeilijker voor Rusland niet de burgers in Oost-Oekraïne te hulp te schieten met militaire hulp........
• Het door de VS ondersteunen van neonazi's in Oekraïne. Voordat Porosjenko door de VS werd geparachuteerd als 'president' van Oekraïne, werkte hij al voor BuZa in Washington, hij werd in de VS zelfs 'onze mol' in Oekraïne genoemd..... Dit alles terwijl de VS zogenaamd opkomt voor democratie, waar dit 'land' bij herhaling democratisch gekozen regeringen aan de kant laat zetten en het liefst laat vervangen door fascisten.... Naast Oekraïne: Chili in 1973 en Honduras in 2009, verder een reeks Midden- en Zuid-Amerikaanse landen voor en na 1973, waar de VS uiteraard dikke steun verleende aan deze fascistische mensenrechten schendende junta's....... Voorts nog de staatsgrepen tegen: Syrië (een mislukte poging), Brazilië (de staatsgreep tegen president Dilma Rousseff), Libië en Iran (waar de staatsgrepen tegen de Braziliaanse president Rousseff en president Assad van Syrië, alweer gericht waren tegen democratisch gekozen regeringen.......). Om te besluiten met Venezuela waartegen de VS al een aantal jaren een economische oorlog voert en gewelddadige groepen steunt, dit met de opzet president Maduro af te zetten.....
• De uitbreiding van de NAVO, tegen de afspraken in, die in 1991 met Gorbatsjov werden gemaakt..... Het niet uitbreiden van de NAVO was zelfs de eis van Gorbatsjov, voor het akkoord gaan met de hereniging van Oost- en West-Duitsland........

Mensen lezenm dit met feiten onderbouwde artikel van Shahtahmasebi en geeft het door!

What Trump Is Doing in Ukraine Proves the Mainstream Media Doesn’t Know Sh*t

January 9, 2018 at 9:38 am

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

The Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by providing Russia’s foe — Urkaine — with the largest lethal assistance to a country on its border.

(MPN) — Despite the mainstream media’s insistence that U.S. President Donald Trump is some sort of compromised Russian lackey, the fact is that at the end of last year, his administration approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014. This is a move that clearly infuriates and angers Russia, souring relations between the two countries even more so than they already had been under the Obama administration (and in various stages throughout Trump’s first year in office).

According to The Washington Post, administration officials confirmed that in December the State Department had approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and other associated parts and accessories to Ukraine — a package valued at $41.5 million.

At first, it was reported there had not yet been approval to export the heavier weaponry the Ukrainian government had been asking for, such as anti-tank missiles. However, by the end of

December, reports began surfacing that the Trump administration was in fact going to provide 35 FGM-148 Javelin launchers and 210 anti-tank missiles. The Javelin is allegedly one of the most advanced anti-tank systems on the market. The total package is now valued at $47 million, and it wouldn’t be surprising if this figure continues to rise in the weeks to come.

Even under the 2014 Ukraine Freedom Support Act, the Obama administration never authorized large commercial or government arms sales, thereby making the recent announcement the first time that the U.S. will provide “lethal” weapons to the Ukraine military.

One senior congressional official said that he predicted this would be just the beginning, stating that the U.S. had “crossed the Rubicon; this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be coming,” according to the Post. Foreign Policy’s Michael Carpenter suggested that NATO countries should follow suit and also provide Ukraine with the arms it needs to counter the so-called threat of Russia. Considering that in September 2017 Russia proposed that UN peacekeepers be deployed to Ukraine, it should be clear that the U.S. is more bent on escalating this conflict than on resolving it.

Russia has already responded in kind, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stating that the U.S. has become an accomplice in the war and that these developments make it impossible for Russia to remain “indifferent,” thereby forcing Russia to consider retaliation measures in response.

The U.S. is the world’s largest arms dealer. The U.S. arms so many countries so much of the time that most of us barely blink. And yet, even taking at face value America’s stated goals of spreading democracy and promoting human rights, the facts on the ground appear to run contrary to those ideals and the U.S. is well aware of these contradictions.

In reality, the United States intervened covertly in Ukraine in 2014 because Russia and Europe were growing far too close to each other for America’s comfort, with Russia supplying at least 30 percent of Europe’s gas supply. This was an issue particularly in relation to Germany’s growing fondness for Russian gas, as Germany is set to become the EU’s major player.

This is a deal-breaker for Washington, which would rather support known neo-Nazis and anti-Semites in order to install a right-wing government capable of opposing Russia as close to the Russian border as one can get.

U.S. Installed a Puppet Government in Ukraine

John McCain, center, speaks as Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, second left, and Opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok, right, stand around him during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 15, 2013. (AP/Dmitry Lovetsky)

On February 7, 2014, the BBC published a transcript of a bugged phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. In this phone call, the U.S. officials were openly discussing who should form Ukraine’s government even before the president, Viktor Yanukovych, had been successfully ousted from power. In other words, the U.S. was actively doing to Russia’s neighbour what the corporate media and various elements of the intelligence communities have accused Russia of doing to the U.S. during the 2016 elections. As The Nation explained:

“In the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert Stephen Cohen put it to Democracy Now, ‘plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.’” [emphasis added]

“Good. I don’t think Klitsch [opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea,”  Nuland said in the call, as transcribed by the BBC.

Pyatt responded:

“Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, an opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.”

Nuland added:

“I think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.”

Oleh Tyahnybok, who had met with Senator John McCain one year prior, is the leader of the right-wing nationalist party Svoboda. When Svoboda was founded in 1995, the party had a swastika-like logo. As Business Insider explains, Tyahnybok is also a known anti-Semite:

“Tyahnybok himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in 2004 after giving a speech demanding that Ukrainians fight against a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ (he later clarified this by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and was only against to ‘a group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]’). In 2005 he wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt ‘criminal activities’ of ‘organized Jewry,’ and, even now, Svoboda openly calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto their passports.”

When the protests broke out in Ukraine in 2014, the entire movement was hijacked by these racist elements.

“You’d never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings,” reported Seumas Milne of The Guardian. Just days ago, thousands marched in Kiev to celebrate the anniversary of far-right nationalist Stepan Bandera’s birthday.

It is revealing that, when the U.S. decided to make a choice between a president they viewed as a Russian ally and the various ultra-right nationalist elements of Ukraine, Washington decided to help oust the former for the benefit of the latter.

The State Department Promoting Neo-Nazism in Ukraine

A photo of the Azov Battalion – a regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine. (Photo: Twitter)

Eventually, it was reported that a man named Petro Poroshenko would be taking up the reins after Yanukovych’s abdication. According to a cable obtained by WikiLeaks, Poroshenko previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department. The State Department even referred to Poroshenko as “our Ukrainian insider.”

For those who truly believe the U.S. protects and promotes democracy while challenging tyranny and dictatorships across the globe, the truth about Washington’s support for puppet regimes that fail to garner the support of their own people is even worse than any anti-imperialist commentator could ever have imagined. In March last year, Foreign Affairs reported that Poroshenko had an approval rating as low as 17 percent. In September last year, the Japan Times reported that his approval rating had dropped to a single digit. Some reportssay it was as low as 2 percent. October last year saw his approval rating grow to its highest in recent times, reaching a stratospheric 14 percent.

In other words, the Trump administration is actively propping up a failed administration in Europe, which does not have the support of 15 percent of its people. Even the far-right militias in Ukraine seem to have more support than the current government. Meanwhile, the U.S. has done nothing but its utmost to tear apart the respective democratically elected governments in Syria and Iran, both of which have far greater approval ratings than do Poroshenko and his administration.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Washington’s recent decision to arm Ukraine will only make the conflict more deadly and suggested that Russia could be forced to respond. “[The U.S. is] not a mediator. It’s an accomplice in fueling the war,” Ryabkov said in a statement. Clearly, Russia has a vested interest in not seeing another NATO ally on its borders, capable of pointing American missiles in its face on a daily basis.

As The National Interest learned at the end of last year from recently declassified material, the U.S. did indeed break a promise at the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward.” George Washington University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton wrote in the National Security Archives:

“The [recently declassified] documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991. That discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion, were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”

The documents appear to confirm Russia’s assertion that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the proposal for German reunification (which Gorbachev could have vetoed) only in reliance upon these assurances from its American counterparts that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. This history is reminiscent of how Russia was further duped out of using its veto power on a U.N. Security Council Resolution in Libya in 2011, after having received assurances that the coalition would not pursue regime change.

“I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding,” then-British Prime Minister John Major told Gorbachev, according to British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite’s diary entry of March 5, 1991:

“We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”

The documents also show that Russia had received these assurances from a number of other high-level officials. These officials included then-Secretary of State James Baker; President George H.W. Bush; West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher; West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl; former CIA Director Robert Gates; French leader Francois Mitterrand; Margaret Thatcher; British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd; and NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner.

U.S. Army soldiers representing units participating in the the Anaconda-16 military exercise, attend the opening ceremony, in Warsaw, Poland, Monday, June 6, 2016. Poland and some NATO members launched their biggest ever exercise, involving some 31,000 troops in a show of force to neighboring Russia.

Since that time, NATO has clearly expanded into Europe to the detriment of Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has grown to include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, and Montenegro.

These developments are crucial because, when one is honest about America’s infamous history since World War II, it is clear that NATO exists as an entity only to counter and contain Russian influence. Its sole purpose is to oppose Russia at every corner and this is no secret even in the corporate media.

According to the Telegraph, NATO was formed in “Washington on 4th April, 1949 after the end of the Second World War, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe.” This can be seen clearly in the complete rejection of the Soviets’ attempt to join NATO itself after Joseph Stalin’s death.

In a 2016 interview with The New Yorker,  Douglas Lute, a former three-star general and then-U.S. Ambassador to NATO also patently admitted that:

“…NATO was founded on the premise of preventing an attack by the Soviet Union in Central Europe, where the U.S. would have to come to the aid of Europe … For the first forty years, NATO focussed on its greatest risk—the threat that the Soviet Union posed to Western European security.”

At the time the unrest broke out in 2014, then-NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that the proposed IMF-EU package presented to Ukraine would have been “a major boost for Euro-Atlantic security” suggested that NATO had set its sights on bringing Ukraine into the military alliance. In July of this year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Poroshenko in Kiev to further discuss this prospect, already pledging support to Ukraine on some level.

Now Ukraine’s bid to join NATO seems almost irrelevant, as the U.S. is formally involving itself deeper in the Ukrainian conflict and providing arms to a regime that has flirted with an approval rating lower than 10 percent, all the while provoking Russia to take further measures in response.

What could possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, the Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by providing lethal assistance to a country on its border. Not only is Trump maintaining an Obama-era policy, he is aggravating and converting Obama’s Ukraine policy into a much more dangerous one — ultimately aimed at provoking an aggressive response from Russia in the weeks or months to come.

By Darius Shahtahmasebi / Creative Commons / MintPress News / Report a typo