Falsehoods in the NYT’s Editorial, ‘Mr. Putin Tests the West in Ukraine’

Eric Zuesse

The only way to expose lies is within context; so, this will be somewhat lengthy:

The Times  editorial opens with a falsehood: “There is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine, not as volunteers, as the rebel commander in Donetsk would have the world believe, but in units equipped with mobile artillery and heavy military equipment.” Their only cited source for that statement is “a senior NATO officer.” But should anyone take as a source, on that type of matter, either an anonymous U.S.-NATO official, or an anonymous Russian official? That’s hardly an unprejudiced “source,” in either case — and it’s their only source on this.

The context here has to be understood: During the run-up to our 19 March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times  was similarly taking, as sources, anonymous U.S. officials, who lied about the evidence, saying that aluminum tubes in Iraq were definitely being used for making weapons of mass destruction, when they weren’t at all, and that “uranium from Niger” was being snuck into Iraq for nuclear bombs that were also a fabrication — outright forged ‘evidence,’ selectively accepted, while the Times  selectively rejected, and avoided even to mention, far more-solid evidence to the exact contrary. They wanted us to invade, and we did. The Times  apologized for their “errors” years later, after the damage had already been done — damage (many thousands of corpses, and several trillions of dollars in costs) that the Times  greatly assisted George W. Bush to produce, by helping to sell the country on doing it.

The Times  is today trying to repeat their catastrophic success, in Ukraine and elsewhere, simply because their readership continue to subscribe, notwithstanding the paper’s proven abysmal journalistic quality — which wins top awards, even after having been demonstrated by that catastrophic experience to be actually dismally, even catastrophically, poor.

The Times  has not improved since then. There has been no accountability for those thousands of corpses, and trillions of dollars, wasted in Iraq. Readers still buy the paper. And, so, this type of ‘journalism’ (actually mere stenography to the existing U.S. regime — Bush then, Obama now) (transparently just that, and nothing more), continues on, uninterrupted.

Anyway, the Times  allegation here is certainly false. There is plenty of doubt, though the Times  says, “There is no longer any doubt.” Their citing only one — an entirely untrustworthy — source for their allegation is like calling their readers fools to their very faces, but their readers buy it: they still buy the paper, as if it were reliable; and so they are what the Times  management think they are, and the Times  merely takes advantage of that, and of them, history-be-damned.

However, one needn’t necessarily go as far as Paul Craig Roberts on this matter, when he headlined on August 17th, “In The West, Respect for Truth No Longer Exists,” and when he said there, “Now we have the media story of the armored Russian column that allegedly crossed into Ukraine and was destroyed by Ukraine’s rag-tag forces,” and that, “British reporters fabricated this story or were handed it by a CIA operative working to build a war narrative. The disreputable BBC hyped the story without investigating.” He’s probably right on all of that except “The disreputable BBC,” because the BBC is reputable just like the Times  is; and bad too, like the Times is; but the Times  allegation here is certainly false, regardless of whether the paper (or the BBC, or etc.) is “reputable.”

The point here, in any case, is that despite the Times  allegation, there still hasn’t been any reliable evidence published anywhere, that Russia’s troops are fighting in Ukraine (as the opening of the Times  editorial alleges), nor even evidence on this issue that’s based on trustworthy sources. None at all.

So: the Times  editorial opens with this blatant and even glaring falsehood.

Next, their editorial states, “new, tougher Western economic sanctions are obviously needed to make clear to President Vladimir Putin of Russia that the West views his lies and escalating aggression as a major threat.” But, actually, the existing sanctions hurt “the West,” and might even be helping Russia, by tying Russia more to China and other non-Western countries; so, the Times’s  “obviously” is likewise (and also quite obviously) false. European Union commerce with Russia is ten times what America’s is; and the EU is definitely hurting from these sanctions. Russia’s top-four sources for imports are China (15%), Germany (14%), Ukraine (5.5%), and Belarus (4.6%); and Russia’s top-four export markets are Netherlands (9.2%), China (8.1%), Germany (6.5%), and Ukraine (5.7%). In the future, on account of the sanctions (that the Times  says are “obviously needed” and must be made “tougher”), we’ll probably see more of China, Brazil, and India, and less of Europe and Ukraine, there. Furthermore, the likely resulting separation of the world, into these two trading-blocs — one that includes Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand; and the other that includes Russia and most of the rest of the world — could hurt “the West,” far more than it will the rest.

Consequently, it is ridiculously false to assert, as the Times  does (without documentation or support), that “new, tougher Western economic sanctions are obviously needed.”

Sanctions are economic measures; and the sanctions thus far have also driven Russia, along with China and several other countries, to increase their move to abandon the dollar and to establish new alternative international economic institutions so that the end of the dollar as the international reserve currency is now seriously on the horizon, whereas previously it was just talk.

Next, the Times  editorial praises the assertion by Obama’s U.N. Ambassador in which she had said that Russian troops “fight alongside illegal separatists” in Ukraine. No evidence was presented by the Times  on that. (Merely our Government’s saying it is enough for them and their gullible readership.)  Nor is mention being made by the Times  that the Obama Administration illegally perpetrated a coup d’etat in February that overthrew Ukraine’s last democratically elected President, who had won in his 2010 election a truly nationwide election, that had near 70% turnout in all parts of the country. In Ukraine’s subsequent May 25th ‘election,’ which has been the only one held since our

February coup there, only the areas in Ukraine that favored our coup were allowed to vote, and the other areas didn’t even want to vote in that election, because the government that was holding it was bombing them. See the election’s turnout map at wikipedia, which is here


and this turnout contrasts sharply with the turnout in the election that chose the President, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama overthrew in February

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Активность_избирателей.svg, in which, as shown there, the turnout was approximately the same throughout the country.

So, what today’s Ukrainian Government insists was a ‘democratic’ election that included the regions they’re bombing, is in fact not that at all. It didn’t include those regions, but the Kiev regime insists on ruling those regions, regardless of that. Basically, the extermination-program in the southeastern half of Ukraine antagonized the residents there toward the regime that was choosing the candidates and that was holding the 2014 election; and, yet, this new Ukrainian Government claims that the regions that are breaking away from this U.S.-coup-imposed ‘democracy’ have no right to break away from it, at all, even despite this new government’s ethnic cleansing program to get rid of the residents there. According to the U.S. regime, the residents there don’t have a right to life — just bomb them some more, until they accept our regime. That’s our ‘democracy,’ which Obama’s people are offering the people there.

Then, the Times  says, “Mr. Putin has played his dangerous game in Ukraine with cunning and deceit since the ouster in February of the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych lost him a Ukrainian president he could manipulate.” But that (clumsily written) statement is loaded with multiple deceptions: All of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been profoundly corrupt; this “ouster” was a U.S. coup not against a corrupt one but against one who declined the U.S.-EU offer; and the deal that Yanukovych had rejected from the (then U.S.-dominated) EU wasn’t nearly as good for Ukraine as was the one on offer from Russia: Yanukovych was doing the right thing for his people, all Ukrainians, by choosing Russia’s offer instead. None of this essential background has ever been so much as mentioned in the Times.

Then, the Times  continues in their condemnation and lies about Putin: “He annexed Crimea outright.” That is meant to give the false impression that Putin used force in Crimea, rather than the true impression, which is that Obama used force in Kiev, and that it backfired and failed totally in Crimea. A Gallup poll in Ukraine in April of this year found that, while Obama’s coup-regime in Kiev was viewed favorably in Ukraine’s northwest, it was despised and feared in Ukraine’s southeast, which is where Crimea is located. Moreover, in Crimea, “only 2.8% of the public there view the U.S. favorably; more than 97% of Crimeans do not.” And this poll was taken right before our campaign to slaughter our regime’s opponents in Ukraine’s southeast, which started on May 2nd, and which was initiated by the U.S. White House and has been part of Obama’s plan — to eliminate the people in the areas of Ukraine that had overwhelmingly voted for the man whom Obama overthrew in February. Obama doesn’t want Ukraine ever again to have at the top a President who isn’t controlled from the White House, so he’s getting rid of those voters. Crimeans having voted overwhelmingly on March 16th to break away from Ukraine and to come under the protection of Russia is what, in fact, saved the Crimeans from being bombed to smithereens like the rest of the people in Ukraine’s southeast are. Furthermore, Crimea had been a part of Russia from 1783 until 1954 when Khruschev tried to appease the people in Kiev by handing Crimea over to them. Furthermore, “Gallup surveyed Crimeans just a few months before Obama’s coup in Ukraine,” and headlined “Public Opinion Survey: Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, May 16-30, 2013.” They found that when asked “Regardless of your passport, what do you consider yourself?” 40% said “Russian,” 25% said “Crimean,” and only 15% said “Ukrainian.” So: when the Autonomous Republic voted after Obama’s coup, when even fewer Crimeans self-identified with the now-fascist-run Ukraine, it had to have been a foregone conclusion that they’d choose Russia (on March 16th), because even prior to that, there was nearly a three-to-one preference of Russia over Ukraine. That same (and this was pre-plebiscite) poll showed 68% favorability for “Russia” and 6% favorability for “USA.” 53% wanted to be part of the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, while only 17% wanted to be part of the EU.

Then, the Times  says, without even pretending to cite a credible (or any) source on it, “The rebels shot down a Malaysian jetliner with a Russian missile,” though the credible evidence is unanimous to the contrary: The Ukrainian Government itself shot it down — and intentionally. However, even if that weren’t the case, it was Obama who actually caused that airliner to be downed. And the Times  hides all of that essential background and evidence from its readers, just like they did in 2002 and 2003 regarding “Saddam’s WMD,” etc.

A country where a ‘news’ organization such as that can repeatedly win highly touted prizes for ‘journalism’ cannot possibly be a democracy, because the voters are being deceived so much, and so thoroughly, on such basic issues, even of war and peace, and of what the country itself is doing, so that to call such a country “democratic” would be to insult democracy itself.

The problem is not democracy; it is instead the lack of that, which has been and is the problem in America today.

No problem can be solved unless it is first identified and understood. We cannot rely upon ‘news’ media such as The New York Times  to help us do that, because they are a crucial part of the problem. It’s that deep.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • TruthTimeEditorial

    here is my editorial piece on the Times:

    The TruthTime editorial opens with a “truth”hood: “There is no longer any doubt: Times is a mouthpiece of the State Department, not as volunteers to ignorance, as the State Department would have the world believe, but in journalists equipped with propaganda straight from the State Department itself.”

  • Barbara Cornett

    Sadly, isn’t it jews who are behind most of the drama with their self serving manipulations? It seems that the favorite tactic by jews of getting White people killed is war. Let’s just tell them to go fight for a change.

    • unheilig

      Zat the official Nazi line?

      • Barbara Cornett

        What’s the difference between a Nazi and a zionist?

        • cettel

          I’ll tell you, and I’m Eric Zuesse, who wrote this article: A “Nazi” is a member of Germany’s Nazi Party, which is currently illegal in Germany.
          A “nazi” is an adherent to the ideology of nazism, otherwise known as racist fascism, and anyone in any country can be a racist fascist; the term “nazi” isn’t restricted to any party, or any nationality.
          A “zionist” is an adherent to Jewish nazism; the person is a Jew who happens to be a nazi.
          And anyone who, like you just did, alleges that it’s “Jews who are behind most of the drama with their self serving manipulations” is assuming that Jews are evil in ways that non-Jews are not: it’s to attribute evil to an entire class of people, whom you obviously hate with a blind and stupid passion, which sweeps up all Jews, including Albert Einstein, Felix Mendelssohn, Jonas Salk, and many other progressives, who are a hell of a lot better people than many non-Jews, such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, Bashar al-Assad, and so many others, so that you are certainly a racist, an anti-Semite; you displayed it by that stupid and bigoted and false comment. We also know that it’s false because Barack Obama, who did the Ukraine coup, is no Jew. He had lots of Jewish and lots of Christian helpers in doing it, but it wouldn’t have happened without him: he’s the one. In order to understand why it happened, a rational person will be looking into the motivations of that one person, above all, not to all “Jews … with their self-serving motivations.” In the Holocaust and in hundreds of smaller pogroms throughout history, the world has seen what people who possess that bigotry do; and, like all bigots, any sane and decent person stays away from them as much as possible.

          • Barbara Cornett

            jews are behind the things that are happening in Ukraine. jews are the ones who control our White House and our congress and our propagandist media.

            jews are destroyers and they have evolved to become perfect destroying machines but the problem is they are unable to put back something good for what they destroy and are therefore the enemies of all mankind.

            Nazis are used by jews in order to demonize White people. Any enemy of the jews is stigmatized and propagandized just as jews have done to the Nazis and while we hear how evil the Nazis were we never look at the jew machinations that resulted in Germans wanting rid of them which they had every right to do just like every European nation before them drove the jew out.

            Germany and England were fighting trench warfare and neither side winning but there was a great slaughter so they went to the peace table.

            jews went to the Brits and told them they would get America into the war and defeat Germany if the Brits would give them Palestine. The world wars were caused by jews who would like to finish off the West by starting WW3.

            After Germans were defeated the jews poured in to feed off of them and buy up everything on the cheap because that is what jews are. That is why they were in Germany when the Nazis rose to power and I wish the Nazis had done everything they are accused of doing.

            The history of Germans and the history of jews are completely different. jews are the world’s trouble making, destroying, parasitic, predatory, cancerous plague. And your problem is, everybody knows it.

            As a member of the founding stock of America I am entitled to my opinions. I am entitled to express my opinions and those who call me racist and anti Semite are the ones who are doing evil things to me in my own country.

            An anti Semite is someone who will do to jews what jews do to everyone else. You bet I would.

          • Barbara and Cettel, please, dont get lost on definitions. I do understand when you refer to zionists as the hard core of the jews, and, off course not all jews are bad like everywhere else. The term NAZI is not but have been made by Hollywood culture a simbol of facism and racism, which is by two ways absurd. It translates into National Socialism and that was Hitler´s & Co true political agenda until the buddies of the Versailles treaty and their bankers from New York didnt let go on struggling Germany to death. Anyhow, we end up with the same people and powers and those are mainly zionists not afraid to offer its own light jews like they do since all times. We all know that religions of whoever are invented to freeze the brains of free human beings, and we all know that the true promotors are that much religious than a bird on Mars.
            Not worthy arguing here, just observe and document by professional means how they try to corner Russia into a mayor war because Wall Street again does need it, after the zionists slaugthered the US and world economy. Observe also the arctic region where big resources being found, the intentions of the US on foreign ground again and disputes between the natural neighbours Norway, Siberia (Russian federation), etc.
            Taking away from Russia what is historical treasure of Russia, the Crimenea, and trying to post NATO close to Moscow on ukranian ground and cheating around arctic sovereign territories is something any leader would welcome to respond by nukes, except Putin. Lucky we are all it wasn´t Jelzin at office!

          • Babs

            Both the United States and Germany are occupied by jews who are nothing but destroyers. Americans are hated around the world but if others could see the Hidden Hand behind Obama and our Congress they would see the true face of American evil and that is the jew.

            Germans today are still paying reparations to that podunk trouble making criminal terrorist shit hole israel. When will jews pay reparations to the families of the Holodomer?

            Abe Foxman tells Ukrainians to keep their mouths shut about Holodomer because Ukraine’s one hundred million would make the made up number 6 million look bad in comparison.


            When will the “not all jews” ever even acknowledge what jews did? The problem that we have is that jews take license to live in our homelands. Therefore any jew in our homelands is a problem. Respectfully, there is no such thing as “not all jews”.

            They should live in their own place and leave others alone or we should solve our problem once, for all and forever.

            By the way, israel pays its citizens to go on the internet and post propaganda if anyone says anything negative about them which means anyone who tells the truth about jews.

            Maybe they should pay us to keep out mouths shut 🙂 especially given that there is not much that can be said when people know the truth because jews have no defense, their DNA being what it is.

          • Yes Babs, I do hear you loud and clear and we share this with our friends in the US until the background of FED/BIS/London/Paris/Frankfurt/…. has been revealed and the force of manipulation exposed. I came already that far by investigating jewish role in slavery, most of the african slaves have been brought to North America, Caribean and South America by jewish “traders” and builded an important asset to the than Bank of New York. There are others too but I just became upset on the jewish question of being the “brave victims of christianity and muslim” and specially because I am a german and having been overthrown with lies each year bigger and bigger to feed the holocaust-hollywood-industry. Fact is that there have been only 325.000 german citizens with jewish believe registered at birth registration but they manage to talk about 6 million jewish victims which was not even the worldpopulation of jews back that time. Toped by 2.500 cases of fraud investigations at US fiscal attorney in which holocaust survivers at age of 30 claiming reparation in 2011 showing to me what a Israelian friend once told me: jews have many passports, jews are professional victims charging you a hundred times…..
            And yet do not believe that there is no resistance within modern jews, but they are heavily controlled by mossad and the fanatical inner circle of Zionists, radical right wing.
            The moment we give up on our fake monetarian system they all will fall into abyss in short term and that is what it is all about. Chess mate.

  • Party Like 1999

    Absoultely nothing the New York Times publishes can be believed. This is because their collective loyalties lie offshore. Their hate campaign against Russia indicates they care not for New York City, yea, not even the region or landmass it occupies.
    As configured such, the role it fills now is to reassure the future victims of it’s malice to remain in place to be vaporized at the appropriate time. They built a global beast. Now the beast will burn it with the proviso that they get to go out on top.
    So now the New York TImes fills Obama’s mouth with words of hate towards Russians in private and then reports them with moronic glee.

  • James Whitten
    • TAYLOR6135

      A­­­­­nyo­­ne who ne­­­­eds an ex­tra in­­come, I ca­n hi­­ghly recom­­mend this gi­g… I work­ed it for 3 mon­­ths and it helped me when I was between jobs… I’ve earned 3­000 in 10 days… Now I have a new job so I am not doing it any­­more but I can say it’s a great source of extra mon­­thly in­­­come. You can ch­­eck it out her­­e

  • James Whitten
  • unheilig

    Good article, with one exception. The BBC IS disreputable: it no longer pretends to be anything other than an UKGOV mouthpiece. Whatever Carmeron-Clegg and their toadies say is repeated without question.

    • cettel

      Oh, and which news-media are “reputable” (look it up in a dictionary)?
      Of course the BBC, like the NYT, is at the top in being “reputable.”
      To call them “disreputable” is to assume that being “reputable” is somehow a mark of high quality. It is to affirm the common prejudices and bigotries.
      I wouldn’t have written this article if the editorial it critiques had appeared in a disreputable publication. I wrote the article because that editorial appeared in the most reputable publication in the U.S. I wrote this article as a commentary on the United States of America, my own country — the country in which the NYT is at the pinnacle of the ‘journalistic profession,’ which in this country is a sub-category of “Public Communications” along with PR, including propaganda, and according to which the NYT sets the standard, rather than violates the standard. The standard in the U.S. is fascism; that’s what the nation has descended into.
      In other words: My article is presenting a powerful piece of evidence that the U.S. isn’t any democracy at all. This article isn’t about merely The New York Times. It is an observation about the USA. It’s to help set straight the record on what kind of country we now have.
      And the BBC too is highly reputable, regardless of what even Paul Craig Roberts says. I respect him enormously, but he got that one wrong.

      • unheilig

        Eric, you should spend more time on the BBC website. It literally reproduces the official government line on everything. IMO that is not reputable behavior, regardless of its reputation. Bernie Madoff had a reputation for financial genius until he was shown to be a crook.

        • cettel

          But a ‘news’ medium that “reproduces the official government line on everything” is the sort of ‘journalistic’ organization that is, in fact, of high repute, in our society. That’s what all of the ‘reputable’ ones do.
          There are no good ‘reputable’ ‘news’ sites.
          A few ‘disreputable’ news sites are good. Many are not. Washingtonsblog is one of the few that are good; and I think that there are only around ten that are. The rest are disreputable bad. And, like I said, all reputable ones are bad.

          • unheilig

            Agreed. It’s another symptom of the fascist-oligarchic syndrome. Which is why I keep reading and recommending this site. Keep up the good work!

  • ICFubar

    “Russkies” in the Ukraine dagnabbit… Why I hear tell there’s German, French and Dutch as well….them bein’ military officers of those nations armies….fighting with the Novorussians against the Kiev neo nazis. Best report on them fellas also as bein’ where they shouldn’t be…but are God bless em..

  • jerry

    Crock liberal social media. Fricken radical Muslims wrote this or insane uneducated liberal