I know it's open media but does OpEdNews really have no standard of publication? I mean demanding factual accuracy is a low bar.

the best who will join all of our formerly totally credible journalists, well when they were exposing Bush lies, under that fleet of buses that has become necessary as one after the other of our best journalists are thrown to the dogs.

The truth is hard to accept, but NATO is exactly what he says it is and probably only in America does anyone believe otherwise.

Sadly I feel the level of general knowledge of the average American 'news viewer' to be about just there.



Current annexation of new members to NATO.

Some people say the Cold War never ended...even after the Great Buffoon said it did. I tend to wonder.

but how the mighty have fallen if they've fallen to writing this kind of wacky crap for Op Ed News. If this is the kind of crap journalism he's going to produce, he deserves to be out of paid journalism; this is pacifist-fantasy hackery that no credible publication would pay for.

As for general worldviews you espouse or ascribe to other people? You need to get out of your insular anti-American reactionary-pacifist bubble more often...your credibility is asymptotically approaching zero. If you said the sky was sky blue, I'd have to double-check to make sure.

All I need to know about credibility is that the pro-Kiev junta supporters are sharing the political side with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Dick Chaney.

L.A. Times Reporter Cleared Stories With Agency Before Publication

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014888697

Are you sure you know how to accurately cite what other people have stated?

Please take care in the future to mark when you start a quotation in the middle of a text. Take special care if you leave out parts which may or may not be relevant - however important they may appear to you - and mark such ellipses by putting three dots where you left out something.

Thanks for your kind attention.

I believe it was Rove who tried to use that particular nasty accusation against Liberals when he came to NY. It was a thing of beauty to see how his nasty little chicken hawk head was handed to him by Democratic Veterans whose patriotism he so viciously attacked. Tens of thousands of them actually.

Now go right ahead and prove that Liberals like me who dare to state their opinion about a journalist are 'anti-American'. ANYONE who uses the Rovian tactic against Democrats has zero credibility. My comment was wrt to a well-known journalist, yours is all about ME. I look forward to you proving your nasty assumption or apologizing for it.

I'm surprised he didn't call you a hippy.

of what's afoot. Well worth the few minutes to thoughtfully read.

NATO hasn't been expanding to Russia's borders by force. NATO has been begged to expand by those who felt the Russian bootheel on their necks for half a century. NATO was invited in. The Russians, not so much.

Russia is reaping what the Soviet Union (ie Russia) had sown.

That made me laugh out load. Don't know much about liberal journalists do you?

For the record, Pepe Escobar has been one of the best journalists over the past 15 years ago exposing the Bush gang of war criminals and their Global cohorts and has been one of the favorite reporters of the Left throughout those years. Not to mention he has been RIGHT about all of it.

But stating he is a Putin lover is the most hilarious thing I've read all day. He would be amused.

little to no willingness to address the message.

No surprise

and the Right were attacking him furiously, but never addressed what he was reporting? I do. I have a sense of deja vu, and I am not alone.

Otherwise, meh.

that country and result in extremism which under his secular rule was kept in check? Iow, if someone states facts about a political figure, they are a fan?? Got it, the Right was 'right' about Left being Saddam lovers, no?

with 'singlehandedly' building his country's economy (George Galloway may have come close, I suppose). Those aren't 'facts'; they are subjective praise of the highest order. If someone did talk about Saddam like that, then yes, I'd have called them a Saddam lover.

If you don't remember it and the effect it had, here is the speech whose praise by Pepe Escobar you have found:

for his own authority and force, it looks remarkably hypocritical.

and its actual content, not for your unrelated, evasive comments. I note you don't acknowledge its discussion here on DU either, which somehow you must have forgotten.

That you would characterise the brutal Georgian attack on South Ossetia as an "invasion" by Russia is also very telling.

No, comments about Putin's past military actions are not 'unrelated' to a speech by him about military action. It might have been better for Georgia not to attack the South Ossetians, but that didn't mean it was OK for Russia to send in its own military. Rather like it's not OK for it to send its military into Ukraine.

If you liked the speech so much, then I presume you're OK with people saying you like Putin. Sabrina doesn't seem OK with people saying Escobar likes Putin, and (in a far more unrelated move) brought up what people said or thought about Saddam.

some time before Georgia invaded. The main instigator of this action, BTW, is currently in pre-trial detention (in absentia, protected in the US where he has some posh university job).

The Russians had taken note of the referendum in South Ossetia in favor of indepence from Georgia, but stopped short of supporting it. They said their reaction depends on what stance the world community will take with respect to the recognition of Kosovo.

What Putin had laid out in the speech, the extension of NATO despite promises made, the increasing disregard of the UN, disrespect for the sovereignty of states and unilateral military actions on behalf of the US and its puppets had been pointed out and criticised by Russia for a long time. He said it openly and directly to the faces of the politicians present there, in the video you can see McCain, Lieberman and others. It was the final warning.

When the US and consorts finally recognized Kosovo in early 2008, the Russians took the consequences. The Georgian invasion, again with full and vocal support of the US, took place in August, the Russians had no longer any qualms to directly support South Ossetia, not only with their peace troop contingent, but with additional troops to defend against an open and violent attack, and a short while later by recognizing South Ossetia as an independent state.

There is nothing hypocritcial about these actions, they are well explained and logical.

Whether or not I liked Putin's speech in Munich, he told the truth, a truth that is now apparently even on Democratic message boards being denied and not only by the likes of McCain and other neocon warmongering arsonists. I like it when the truth is being told, Escobar seemed to like it, most of DU at the time did so in any case.

You are still mum about what you think or may have thought at the time about the speech, other than making unrelated, evasive comments.

"Ukraine, it must be stressed, is not a NATO member. Technically, every NATO bureaucrat in Brussels admits that a candidate country must request membership. And countries with regions mired in an international dispute are not accepted. So Ukraine would only be considered if Kiev gave up Crimea. It's not going to happen."

Cute. Weak, but cute.

This isn't some longstanding border disagreement.

the Cyprus Dispute.

It doesn't really matter what a dispute may be about. The problem with countries that have unresolved "disputes" which may lead to military conflicts is that member states may anticipate such conflicts and be unwilling to take the risk getting involved. Ukraine can only become a member if Germany, for instance, is willing go to war with Russia. As Pepe says: not going to happen. Merkel already said that NATO membership for Ukraine is out of the question.

Nuff said. He writes for Asia Times also if I'm not mistaken.


That guy is crazy.

And he ain't eating the Neocon gruel.

too, anyone who challenged their narrative was risking being called 'crazy', but thank the gods for all the crazy journalists who just kept on telling the truth regardless of the personal attacks they endured.

Otherwise we would have been dependent on the Corporate Media's propaganda.

Pepe is absolutely correct regarding Ukraine not being a member of NATO which many of US have pointed out, though not the Corporate Media that I know of. Libya wasn't either eg. So why is NATO involved with all these countries, 'we are protecting Libyans/Ukrainians/fill in the blank, seriously? As everyone knows NATO's charter is about member nations only.

I saw today that their military budget tops ONE TRILLION DOLLArs. Guess who pays most of it?? The US! And yet we cannot afford free lunches for own poor children.

have you ever looked at a map?

journalist btw?

At bottom, people like this are entertainers. They put on a show, and without hyperbole would have no audience.

and Neocon propaganda.

"The real deal this September is not NATO. It's the SCO's summit. Expect the proverbial tectonic shifts of geopolitical plaques in the upcoming meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- a shift as far-reaching as when the Ottoman empire failed at the gates of Vienna in 1683. On the initiative of Russia and China, at the SCO summit, India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia will be invited to become permanent members.

Once again, the battle lines are drawn. NATO vs SCO. NATO vs BRICS. NATO vs Global South. Therefore, NATO attacks!"

an attack from Germany - I mean from Sweden - no, from France?

This portrayal of Russia as a country willing to intervene militarily in countries on or near its borders is an offensive stereotype.

If these small countries would just relax and trust Russia, everything would be fine.

in bombings of small, neighboring countries within the last 20 years.

Sid

The reigning in of Serbian genocide, to a very limited degree in Bosnia, and decisively in Kosovo, is viewed in some circles as black-hearted aggression, intended to destroy the shining example of socialist order and economic might and independence from Western banks of Serbia under Milosevic, as well as a grab for the titanic wealth of resources in Serbia....

Belgium, and the Netherlands.

France has 7 neighboring countries - England, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Italy & Spain.

Sweden has 2 land neighbors (Norway and Finland) and 7 more by water - the Russian Federation, the Baltic countries, Poland, Germany and Denmark.

Please provide information on which "small, neighboring" countries Germany, France and Sweden have bombed in the past 20 years. Any information you have about the reasons for said bombings and the territories that these bombing victim countries had annexed by the offending country would be most appreciated.

If so, I would totally understand the need for these "small, neighboring" countries to form an alliance against Germany, France and Sweden to prevent future such actions. Not only that, I would deem German, French and Swedish protestations labeling such an alliance as "offensive threat" with the derision that it would deserve.

to consider most European states as neighbors, even if it takes driving for an hour or two and crossing more than one border to get there. Having vacationed in Yugoslavia a few times and raised a dog we nicked from a camping site in Montenegro, I always felt close to the coastal residents on the shores of the Adriatic sea.

Regarding the banding together of those smaller or poorer states against overwhelming forces, it's not always guns and bombs as you might think, the more relevant opportunities for cooperation are economic in nature. The South Stream pipeline is going to benefit not only Russia, but a number of smaller European states as well, and I have high hopes that the US won't be able to thwart their plans.

Any new or more secure German military bases in the Balkans? Perhaps greater access to cheap Balkan oil or natural gas?

NATO intervening militarily even when they are not near any of their borders? If they would all just trust NATO everything would be fine.

I watched some of the coverage of the NATO conference this morning and was struck by the sheer 'whiteness' of its leadership. Which made me think of where these noble, former Empire's have been over the past decade, 'protecting' non Nato members.

Couldn't help thinking how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I wonder what Gandhi would think about all this.

together to form a one-for-all, all-for-one alliance, they have every right to do so. And if they do so, it would be laughable for NATO to come along and complain that this alliance is an offensive threat to NATO.

For some odd reason there does not seem to be such a widespread fear of future NATO intervention that would motivate the formation of such an alliance.

I have noticed the same 'whiteness' in the Russian government. In addition, I have noticed a great deal of 'maleness' in the Putin administration and the Russian government in general.

The 'whiteness' of the Russian government is, of course, largely due to fact that the population is largely white - 83% Slavic. (I suppose the same could be said of most European countries.)

I am not so sure how one explains the decided lack of women in Putin's administration and in other branches of the Russian government. Their population must be about 50% female.

Whiteness of the NATO nations is easily understood. Nato is made up of mostly the old brutal Empires of Europe who have been invading and pillaging entire continents for hundreds of years. France, Belgium, the UK of course, Germany et al. I guess the nostalagia for the old days when they were powerful oppressors of the people of Africa, India, South America, the ME, hasn't gone away.

If you are not aware of the bigotry which was part and parcel of those Empires, I suggest you study that history.

We are now the most powerful Empire, mainly because of our Military and the old, fading Empires are back in business, doing what they always did, clinging to the coat tails of the latest Empire. A lesson should be learned from their history, but apparently it is not.

As I said, the Whiteness of the NATO leaders was striking and simply reminded me of their bloody histories regarding the people of the continents they raided, the theft of their cultures, Their resources and the brutality of their tyrannical rule over their conquests.

I remember thinking when I was little and reading about the history of the world, how lucky we were to live in a time when Empires no longer existed.

Was that ever naive. I saw them today and listened to their war talk and wished I had been right.

Re other nations forming alliances like NATO.

South American nations HAVE formed such an alliance, thanks to Chavez who saw the threat from NATO and helped form a similar Alliance on that Continent. One of the main reasons why they hated him, which was imo, rather hypocritical of them.

And Gadaffi was trying to do the same thing in Africa, form a power alliance of African nations to prevent the old Colonial nations from returning to that Continent. Mandella and Bishop Tutu referred to him as their 'brother' because of how he helped end Apartheid in S. Africa. We of course viewed him as an enemy which had much more to do with his attempts to form such an alliance and his nationalizing of Libya's oil, than anything else.

Reading the Wikileaks cables was very enlightening regarding Chavez. Funny how they claim the right to an alliance like NATO to 'protect' their interests, but could not imagine that South America and Africa had the same right to do so. In fact it was shocking to them, a real 'threat'.

exactly the 'brownest' of enemies.

I suppose we should not overlook the USSR's conquest and repression in eastern Europe either since the USSR was a 'white' nation. That, too, was a case of white-on-white conquest and repression. Does "racial responsibility" trump "national responsibility"?

I note you did not respond to the fact that Russia is ruled by whites (understandable given the racial makeup of their country) and MEN (not so understandable given the gender makeup of their country). In addition to 'racial responsibility' and 'national responsibility' for past conquest and exploitation, could we not look at which gender led these terrible historical events? While some 'white' countries are making progress (with a long way to go, but some progress comes before much progress) in the representation of women and non-whites in their governments, other 'white' countries seem quite content with white and male dominance.

While it is certainly true that last few centuries have been filled with a history of European, American and Soviet conquest and exploitation, history will show that that is not a uniquely 'white' experience. Every race and religion has had an era when it was militarily dominant and had vast empires acquired through conquest and repression.

And those South American and North African countries that formed or tried to form alliances against NATO or the West had, and have, every right to do so. We may agree that for the West to view any such alliance as an "offensive threat" would be ridiculous and hypocritical.

I read Escobar often. God stuff!

The thing falls of its own weight, looked at cold for even a moment.

Putin's actions are based on his calculation that the West will not fight.

And yet we are treated daily to claims NATO is seeking war, deliberately provoking Russia, that people are 'beating the war drums', and a variety of other driveling boiler-plate.

Putin's calculation is correct, however: not only is the West not seeking war in Ukraine, it is not going to respond with war to the war Russia provoked and initiated with Ukraine.

It is, indeed, as cool as Mr. Lincoln's highwayman, when a country which has forcibly annexed a portion of a neighboring state, and sent columns of armored infantry across its borders by the thousands to fight pitched battles on its neighbor's soil, accuses people who are standing by and making pious noises of complaint of fomenting war and aggression. And it strains credulity to imagine anyone can actually believe that to be accurate description of the situation....

"Now that is cool. A highwayman puts a gun to my head and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall have to kill you, and then you will be a murderer.'"

"Not even Hollywood could come up with such a plot; Israel gets away with unlawful premeditated mass murder of civilians, while Russia gets framed for a (smaller-scale) airborne mass murder of civilians that has all the makings of being set up by the Kiev vassals of Russia's Western "partners"."


"Then there are the black boxes, which will not de decoded by the Malaysians or by the Dutch, but by the Brits - acting under Washington's orders. As The Saker blogger summed up the view of top Russian specialists, "the Brits will now let the NSA falsify the data and that falsification will be coordinated with the SBU in Kiev which will eventually release the recordings who will fully 'confirm' the 'authenticity' of the NSA-doctored recordings from the UK." To make it more palatable, and erase suspicions about Anglo-American foul play, the Dutch will announce it. Everyone should be forewarned. "

Appears he is big into opinion pieces without backing them up as a real journalist would do. Pepe - This is what I want to state, let me use my imagination to get me there. People who know their end game and then start writing their stories are not journalists. They are on par with fox news contributors.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-300714.html

Excellent description of our corporate media. Hard to find unbiased news and the way any dissenting views are demonized by bashing the writer, it makes one wonder what truth there is in such a situation.

And no better or more reliable in his analysis than Kristol, or even Farrah of NewsMax. Just on a different polarity, and popular with a different variety of extremist....

Pointing out facts, (eg, I notice you did not address even one of the points made in the article), IS extreme as we learned during the Bush era. I remember Escobar and every other journalist and/or Democrat who dared to question the neocon narrative, speaking of extremism, being accused of 'crazyiness'. But as I said above, thank the gods for the 'crazies' or we would be stuck with the Corporate Media's propaganda.

Btw, what sources do you consider to be credible on FP?

His commentary against Bush was as clownish and hyperbolic as his commentaries today. A number of creatures of this type, like Alex Jones and Lyndon LaRouche, switched without missing a beat from vociferous criticism of Bush and Co. to vociferous criticism of President Obama and his administration and its policies. They were no more 'right' then than they are 'right' now. When one begins with faulty premises, builds on false to fact statements, and joins them with fallacious logic, it is not possible for the edifice so constructed to be correct, even if one manages somehow to end up saying something that could be considered more or less true.

You really haven't answered my question to be honest. Escobar and every other journalist who questioned neocon policies were all considered to be 'clowns' back then by Bush supporters I mean. So that isn't news to me, I remember it well.

But I did ask, who do YOU consider to be credible AND consistent, regarding our neocon FP. Escobar and all the others who challenged Neocon FP then, have remained consistent in their criticism.

So who now who has remained consistent, do you consider NOT 'clownish'? If you think we are being misled then it would be helpful to provide information that will prevent that from happening.

"This pretense of not knowing what everyone knows has come to define political discourse in our country."

as to who IS credible I can't seem to get an answer. So again, who should people trust on the issue of our Foreign Policies?

If there is NO ONE, that should be easy to say. But I imagine most people would really like to hear an alternative to the 'oh, he's just a clown/putin lover/idiot or the most popular 'refutation' of journalists like Escobar: h, HIM

So unless those attacking all the messengers can offer up alternatives, I guess we will continue to view the personal attacks on them as we on DU always have.

And stop pretending you have no idea why the criticisms are leveled, and how sound they really are.

that she has certain posters on Ignore.

La dee dah...

BILDERBURGERS!!!!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

Courtesy, BTW, of http://www.dailypaul.com/285363/pepe-escobar-world-traveler-extraordinaire-asia-times-bilderberg-the-masters-of-universe-delusion via http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/.

So I guess you were wrong about that also.

If you are this inaccurate about everything else you write here, it's no wonder you got it so wrong about Escobar.

opinion on what media is credible. I know what I find credible.

Since you don't seem to want to reply to that question, I will just assume it is the Corporate Media which I find to be so totally not credible, I watch it only for comparison to all the other credible media now available to people around the world.

I have no idea why 'criticisms' are now being leveled at almost all the journalists who were considered extremely credible, not just Escobar, throughout the Bush years.

And it dawned on me that people who are engaged in this practice of attacking messengers who GOT IT RIGHT up to now, never offer what THEY consider to be credible. I have asked before, got no answer, and it seems I am not going to get an answer now.

Mr Escobar has always been on my 'credible' list. The reason being, he has been RIGHT.

It is a complicated situation and media seems to have its own bias, so how does a spud like me figure out what is what except by reading as many different points of view as possible. Bashing a source of information as silly or clownish actually reveals more about the commenter than the journalist.

Original data: "It blew up".
Revised, pro-Imperialist Western Aggression data: "It blew out".

"Shit we are SO F&+(ed" to the revised version, "Dear me that will quite ruin our plans for the evening".

"I am fully aware of the role which Jews played in the horrors of the 20th century, I am aware that they declared war on Russia first, and on Germany after that (both times the order came from organized American Jewry and Jewish banks), I loathe both Rabbinical Judaism and Zionism because both are based on self-worship and racism. I don't need lectures on all the bad things Jews have done or are still doing. Believe me, I have read more anti-Jewish books than most people here (if only because I read them all not only English, but also in Russian which has at least 10 times as many anti-Jewish books as there are in English).

I will go as far as saying that Rabbinical Judaism is, in my sincerely held conclusion, Satanic at its core and at least as evil as Wahabi Islam."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/ukrainian-news-two-phone-call-leaks.html

( scroll down to the blue text )

Holocaust denial, "American Jewry", "Jewish banks"...

And what makes it amusing is that he wrote it to try and distance himself from those 'extreme anti-semites' he allows to post up on his blog, or even cites and links to himself, in the name of 'free-speech'. He does not want anyone to think he is some crazy Nazi, for heaven's sake --- he is just a fella who knows all the evil Jews do in the modern world, a salt of the earth, feet on the ground kind of guy who knows what's what....

All the man does is swallow anything that comes out from the Kremlin press bureau, or from the weirder corners of the inter-net, and for some people, this passes for being an informed and intelligent commentator....

Kill the messenger!

I wish to kill no one and that is often the battle cry from those who admire flawed messengers. This guy has a clear track record and you are saying if it is brought up it is some type of "kill the messenger" type thing. Very flawed argument you are making. I strongly suggest you don't blindly accept messages for your whole life. That is really what you are saying. If someone with an agenda who clearly lacks journalistic integrity comes out with an op ed piece then their record is not allowed to be presented. You see, no one except a few duers would actually call this article journalism. If George Bush sent a message to the American people you wouldn't buy into it. You wouldn't even need to read it. Know why? I'm going to tell you. Because you know who the messenger is. See. You actually work the same way. You look at track records. Isn't that awesome. So, Pepe and his track record are open for critique. Not sure why you would think that is a bad thing. I suggest you start learning who the messengers are. It makes a huge difference in understanding the information they are disseminating.

Our MSM still seems to be pushing Neocon hogwash.

Figure that's a fairly lower enough bar.

BILDERBURGERS!!!!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

Courtesy, BTW, of http://www.dailypaul.com/285363/pepe-escobar-world-traveler-extraordinaire-asia-times-bilderberg-the-masters-of-universe-delusion via http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/.

With credit to Mr. OilemFirchen above in No. 47.

Are you claiming that he does and what is your evidence for this claim?

based on nothing else than these two quotes?

I think what he may be going on about in your first quote is the "singularity" claim, when he says "the only case of mass murder in history which always has to be attached to a number of victims". He obviously doesn't deny the mass murder.

As to the exact numbers, there seems to be some disagreement even among serious researchers, since estimates are involved:

You have been repeatedly shown this filthy bigoted garbage:

So what are you saying about these

stupid violent Nazi thugs in Ukraine?

and defend here.

Russian fascism, German fascism, same shit, different pile.

Russian fascists tend to get their entertainment these days by terrorizing gays and lesbians. Mainly because they ran out of Jews.

You defended a post that plagiarized Hitler's history textbooks. Only Nazi scumbags and their equivalent peddle or defend claims of an international conspiracy of Jews declaring war on Germany and Russia in the 20th century.

Am I surpised to see the same people who defend the fascists in Russia defending the most vile bigotry against Jews this side of Auschwitz? No, it makes perfect sense.

Just to be clear, here is what you are defending as acceptable discourse:

on the stupid violent, and did I mention it: anti-Semitic Nazi thugs in Ukraine?

There are many such as them in the Duma.

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

when it comes to stupid violent anti-Semitic Nazi thugs as long as they plunder, burn and kill on behalf of the side you are valiantly defending.

As you can see in the documentary, they occupied (and vandalized) the former Communist Party headquarters, say they fight for "one people, one country" where there is no place for ethnic minorities like "Russians and Jews and Poles", and no, they are not a tiny splinter group, they belong to the 10 percent Svoboda party which forms part of the government.

Go to 34:00

outrages committed by Poland.

Fascists always seek someone else to blame for their aggression. Like your punk-ass Nazi friend, the Saker, who blames both world wars on Jews.

You all have been running that play book for quite some time.

I am not moved by fascists who complain about other fascists.

at these ISIS and Ukraine crises.

NATO is interested in expanding eastward. NATO is planning a 10,000 strong rapid deployment force. And NATO is pre-positioning materials and supplies in member countries who are exposed to Russian military presence.

Russian tanks rolled into Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Some people seem to dismiss or ignore that.

Some folks seem to forget that Russia is now practicing the same crony capitalism that is practiced here in the USA. It seems to me that no side in this matter is beyond reproach. Whose interest does it serve to ramp up these tensions and fears?

by any other name, the dynamic is still the same in many respects.

I agree completely that no side is beyond reproach, which is kind-of my point.

It's easy to write a crazily one-sided analysis from either Russia's or NATO's perspective -- where one side is always irredeemably nefarious and the other side is always impeccably noble.

Sure, there are valid arguments buried in the cynicism in these kinds of screeds. Maybe I'd just rather have the arguments without all of the over-the-top commentary.

They write to please an audience, to draw stares and 'clicks'; that is how they make a living without having to sweat. Without the hyperbolic shrieks, what they have to say is pretty ordinary, and generally not worth a second look, because you probably already picked it up from somewhere else.

Poking Russia with a Stick? NATO Approves Military "Spearhead" for Eastern Europe

Despite warnings from Russia that such a move would be interpreted as a provocation, a plan to deploy thousands of additional US and European troops closer to its border will now become a reality
by
Jon Queally

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/05/poking-russia-stick-nato-approves-military-spearhead-eastern-europe

Seems to affirm at least part of Pepe's points.

Russia has sent several thousands of its soldiers, with armor and artillery, across the border of Ukraine to wage war against Ukraine's armed forces.

Having done this, Russia forfeits any ground to complain that a subsequent mustering of troops by anyone else to deploy in any country Russia shares a border with is 'a provocation'. Unless, of course, one takes the word 'provocation' to mean 'response to aggression already committed'....

you know just like those German's who fought for Franco in Spain!

And amusing how, while they swallow the most obvious and trite of propagandas, they refer to themselves as 'independent thinkers' and describe people who do not agree with them as having been duped by propaganda....