UKRAINE: The demise of free speech and honest media in UK

Let's start off by making a couple of things clear:

At the outset of the Russian action against Ukraine, I didn't think Russia's actions were a good idea.

I was a British soldier for 5 years around the middle of the "Cold War" and, as a result, was not particularly well disposed to Russia or the USSR.

Over the last few months, I have found my views being challenged and changed by events in Ukraine. My interest in events in Ukraine began at the time of the so-called "Maidan" events in Kiev in 2014. Since those events, I have started to take a more serious look at what is happening there. And a number of things appear to be solidifying out of the information soup being dished up by the media, particularly the "Western" media.

The first thing to solidify here is the fact I am more and more baffled by events. What is worse, looking at precedents and motives for what is happening ends up less and less clear. Bloody murky, in fact. Although one thing is fairly clear; the culprit that pops up throughout world history since the end of WW2 is that bastion of "democracy", USA. I think it is fair to say that, over those years, Russia has never invaded any sovereign nation (don't mention Afghanistan; Russia entered Afghanistan as a result of the then current Afghanistan government begging them to come and help them out in the struggles going on between various factions trying to gain and hold onto power there). The USA, on the other hand, has invaded something like 30 sovereign states. Some more than once! And what about engaging in war without putting soldiers and tanks on the ground? Take a look at Kosovo. 

 After the death of Tito, Yugoslavia embarked on a sort of national Hari Kari and began to fragment. To cut a long story short; a bunch of ethnic Albanians, living in the Serbian province of Kosovo, decided they no longer wanted to be part of Serbia and set about fighting the remains of a rudderless Yugoslav army. The USA decided they would pat the Kosovans on the back, encourage them in the fight which should properly be called a Civil War. This culminated in a relentless US bombing of Serbia. Bombing the civil infrastructure of Serbia, in fact. Bear that in mind when reading US inspired media reports of Russian offensives in Ukraine! The US bombing of Serbia was carried out without the political nicety of declaring war on Serbia. Somehow, the US managed to get NATO involved in an undeclared war. When British and Norwegian forces raced to occupy Prstina airport, they found, to their embarrassment, that they had come second and the Russian forces, who were allies of Yugoslavia/Serbia, had beaten them to it. The Russians knew that a fight over the airport would probably lead to WW3 and they withdrew. It should be remembered that the attacks by NATO, particularly the bombing campaign, was never approved by the UN Security Council. At the end of it all, a new republic of Kosovo was recognised by the US and not many other nations. Of course the UK went along with the US as we do as we are bloody well told by the US!

So, what does all this have to do with Ukraine? Well, Kosovo came about as a result of a civil war in Serbia plus unwanted (see UN resolution 1244, which authorised various military and civil options in Kosovo but which refused to back air attacks) US led bombing of Serbia, yet the US says "That's OK. We can recognise Kosovo as an independent state". 

In Ukraine, the civil population of 2 regions (Donetsk & Luhansk) , plus Crimea, decided they had had enough of the treatment they were getting from the Kiev government and voted to ally themselves with Russia. Voted: a much vaunted process labelled as 'Democracy' by western nations. At the behest of the US, western nations smeared this vote as 'illegal, sham' etc. In other words; what the US helped bring about in Kosovo at the point of a gun was OK & democratic, worthy of being termed acceptable etc, while the use of the ballot box in Ukraine was deemed unacceptable and the western media constantly refers to their actions as illegal. The lesson from this is straightforward: "If you want change, eschew the ballot box, pick up weapons and start a war. As long as you are shooting at a nation the US dislikes, you will get backing from the West".

Today, we have a constant stream of crap from the western media, referring to the actions of the people in Donbas and Crimea  as illegal, a sham etc. They all appear terrified of the idea of presenting a balanced view. The once respected BBC is as guilty of this as any. Who remembers Clive Myrie reporting from a hotel balcony in Kiev when the weather was nice and from an underground shelter when it wasn't? A total pointless waste of BBC expenses. Jeremy Bowen, a reporter who I admired for his Middle East coverage, came up with a piece of drivel from Kiev recently when he referred to the Russians as "having failed to take Kiev, as they had planned". Except, of course, the Russians had no such plan. They made to threaten Kiev in order to draw Ukrainian forces from other regions such as Kharkiv, Donbas etc to ease their fight in those regions. Putin had stated, more than once, they were not interested in taking Kiev; their aims were to support the people of the Donbas in their efforts to be rid of the Ukrainian yoke and to remove the "Nazis from the Ukraine government". It has to be said they have not yet achieved that particular aim.