Preamble: While the various existing journalism codes of conduct vary, most share common foundations that include the principles of—truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the attainment of newsworthy information and its ensuing dissemination to the public.
The modern-day reality is that the overwhelming majority of current Western main-stream media is deceitful, unfair and connected to a government purpose. The outcome is that a newscast viewed objectively by somebody, may in fact seem rational, and might pass muster simply because the person who took it mistakenly and in good faith believed it to be true. Such a conclusion places form above substance and undermines the entire ethics and standards of journalism. It has become nothing more than propaganda, a means to distribute bias.
“Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate” –Edward W. Said
Perusing the daily headlines has become somewhat like reading a prologue to global conflict, penned by a madman. Every day there is some new-found elaborate Russian plan to overrun the Ukraine, take control of Syria, or conduct programmes of genocide. It seems that every Western reporter has uncovered a conspiracy of their own that firmly pins the blame for the world’s troubles on Putin or the Russian people; the only problem being that all of their sources remain ‘anonymous’ and their stories cannot be confirmed. These constant, and often contradictory, reports fill social media streams and television screens, and have become the basis for stock phrases such as ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘Western Values’, which politicians need only utter to convince their constituents that they are indeed righteous while the enemy is not. The insanity of Western political and cultural rhetoric is no longer an undercurrent, instead, with disconcerting ease, it has lodged itself into mainstream conversations. A contemporary example is the funding and training of terrorists by the United States and Europe—no longer a notion relegated to conspiracy theory or the occasional intuitive op-ed; instead, it is a reality that is openly discussed at the highest levels of government authority. Furthermore, the constant labelling of countries such as Russia as a threat that is equal to or greater than ISIS can only further confirm that such terror groups are tools used to destabilise regions deemed a threat to US hegemony.
Matyushin discusses the final merger of the DPR Republican Guards into the Army Corps:
The Army of the Donetsk People’s Republic almost completed its reorganisation: Republican Guards merged with the Corps of the Ministry of Defence of the DPR.
This week, the former Defence Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Igor Strelkov, reported in social networks that the DPR Republican Guard had ceased to exist, and half of its staff, he noted, had been scattered “to the four winds.”
On September 11, RT Documentary released a great movie by an American film-maker Miguel Francis-Santiago, also famous for his works “Crimea for Dummies” and “Donetsk: An American Glance”. In his documentary about information wars, Miguel seeks hard facts and evidence, trying to find out who stands behind the walls of disinformation and benefits from double standard propaganda, what is the role of government and other politicians in managing world’s leading MSM, why some serious events are being completely misrepresented and why so many obvious crimes such as coup d’etat in Kiev, civil war in Ukraine or MH17 case have never been investigated properly.
The date of film release was chosen not without a reason either—the journalist explains on his Facebook page what the 11th of September means for him personally:
“For me the 11th of September is a date that will always be the day the Twin Towers, symbols of freedom as I then thought, came crashing down like a baseball being dropped from a 100 story building. I will never forget the image that I saw, standing across the Hudson in downtown Brooklyn, waiting for my Mom to pick me up while the phone lines were completely down. The truth about this disaster, that would trigger world-wide changes in the way we view things and value this planet, might never come out into the public domain. Continue reading
Poroshenko, having previously said that there would be no special conditions for Russia in the repayment of debts, announced three scenarios on the Donbass according to the Junta.
“The first—a decisive military offensive, the liberation of the territories and a march on Moscow. Who among us is suggesting this? Just take a look at the consequences of such adventurous and irresponsible liberations. And the people do not support this position.
“The second position—build a wall, give up part of the territory, live without the Donbass,” he said, noting that, “as the head of state, he has no intention to give away even a single piece of Ukrainian land.”
The third option, according to the President, is “the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian authorities in that territory.” “This path is called—Minsk agreements,” Poroshenko specified.
Briefly on the military situation (based on personal analysis of the available data):
Currently, Ukrainian troops have almost completed their concentration of forces for the planned offensive. In the areas selected as the direction of the main strike (to the south of Donetsk) their superiority over the opposing portions of the NAF [Novorossiya Armed Forces –ed.] is estimated at approximately five-fold. Under the cover of defence in depth, the UAF [Ukrainian Armed Forces –ed.] grouping has a pronouncedly offensive configuration.
At the front, additional exploration of the PRs’ [People’s Republics –ed.] army positions is actively conducted by professional reconnaissance (presumably PMCs [Private Military Companies –ed.]). The number of drones and electronic warfare equipment used by the Ukro-Army is impressive. A considerable reserve of ammunition for all kinds of weapons is concentrated near the front.
Now in the morning we can sum up the results of yesterday’s events.
The culprit is a soldier of the Sych Battalion of the MIA [Ministry of Internal Affairs ‒ed.], Igor Vladimirovich Gumenyuk, who is also a member of the youth wing of the Svoboda Party from the town of Kamenets-Podolsky.
The war correspondents of KP found the only survivor of the terrible massacre in which the photo reporter of MIA Rossiya Segodnya was killed.
The Road on the Front Line
From the final correspondence with Andrey Stenin:
AS: God’s protecting us, that’s for sure.
KP: What happened?
AS: My emotions are running high. Basically, we passed an Ukrop [term for Ukrainian ultra-nationalists –ed.] ambush, and they took out the car after us. Three of them “200” [Russian military jargon for killed-in-action –ed.].
KP: Where was it?
AS: Near Snezhnoye. We passed them by an arm’s length. We drove to the position on the field, I saw a stirring in the bushes, and a soldier wearing a helmet, hiding a machine-gun in the bushes. I thought it was our secret. I thought the guys in front of us saw it, but they said they didn’t see anyone. We drove past him by a metre. We arrived at the village, the fighters told us only that the car was shot-up. We went to look—and there was the shot-up car with three dead bodies in it. If I’d said straight away that I’d noticed the machine-gunner, we would’ve stopped to look, and would’ve been killed. I didn’t say anything to the Militia in the village, I thought it was their secret. And now I’m sitting and thinking it’s my fault…
In an article published at the New Atlanticist, Political Science Professor Alexander Motyl of Rutgers University wrote the strongest justification a Ukrainian nationalist scholar can mount in defence of the Ukraine’s love affair with the nationalism of Stepan Bandera.
Bandera—a mass murderer, torturer, and assassinated former leader of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist émigré political movement—is the Ukrainian equivalent to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, according to A. Motyl’s thesis.
According to Motyl, because of the affinity the Ukrainian nationalists have with Washington and Jefferson, raising Bandera to their level as a father of the nation is nothing the West should “freak out over.”
Igor Ivanovich presented his vision about how to solve the problem of Transnistria, Novorossiya and Ukraine, his attitude towards the Kremlin camarilla and towards Putin personally, as well as Putin’s role in the history of Russia.
Kolokol Rossii (KR): Igor Ivanovich, first of all, we would like to know your position on Transnistria. It is currently the most urgent topic. Is it possible to draw Russia into a conflict with Moldova and Ukraine? Is the Ossetian scenario, for example, a possibility?
Igor Strelkov (Strelkov): I have already spoken about it. This is yet another attempt to provoke Russia into direct participation in military hostilities, but to provoke in such a way that our country plays the game according to a scenario imposed by the enemy. I have no doubt that sooner or later the enemy will succeed in dragging us into a war and the try to force us to capitulate on the foreign policy front. But there is no chance of our President capitulating—I simply do not believe it. The only question is: where could this conflict take place? Transnistria is, for this purpose, an ideal springboard. Let’s be frank—this area is surrounded on all sides by countries hostile to Russia: Ukraine and Moldova. The fact that these countries are hostile to us is, by the way, an ‘outstanding’ achievement of our diplomacy and foreign policy. These ‘achievements’ include the fact that an absolutely pro-Russian Transnistria where (according to various estimates), 150-200 thousand Russian citizens reside, is in a full blockade.