콘솔시움 뉴스에서 복사한 것입니다.
워싱턴 포스트와 뉴욕타임스의 기사의 분석을 통해..서방측의 모종의 변화가 잇다는 것을 추측한 글입니다.
워낙히 많은 주의 주장이 잇습니다.
이런것은 전쟁의 특성상 당연합니다....선전선동물이 범람하고, 작전상의 기밀이 많기 때문입니다.
더구나 우크라인 전쟁은 러시와와 서방 국가들이 관련된 전쟁입니다..
그래서 ...이런 전쟁에 관련된 기사란 ..더욱 걸러 읽어야 합니다..
그런데 도대체 어떻게 걸러 읽을 수 잇습니까??
그래서 답답하다는 것이지요.
다만 어차피 직접정보에 접근할 수 없고..관련 지식이 일천한 사람들의 어쩔수 없는 한계입니다.
다만,
다른것이 잇다...이런 주장에 대한 매우 다른 주장도 잇겟다....는 정도만 꽉 잡고 잇써도..
상당 부분이 걸러지지 않겟냐 싶습니다.
이 사람이 코메디언 입니까?...군사 전문가 입니까??
리비아 전쟁도 그렇고, 그리스 외채 사태에서도 그렇고
세칭 전문가 라는 작자들의 주장에서 다른소리가 얻은 그 어떤 약 되는 정보는 없습니다.
그때도 그렇고 시간이 지나 다음 되 돌아 보면 더욱 그렇습니다..
그딴것과는 비교가 되지 않을 관심에도 불구하고 ....우크라인 사태도 마찬가지 입니다.
한마디로.....언론과 언론인이라것들이 다 ......쓰레기 라는 것이지요..
-러시아 놈들이 한살짜리 여자아이 강간햇다....까야야야야.......악..........................
이 여자가 아직도 언론인으로 보입니까??
다른소린 당장에 정신과 치료 받아야 할 히스테리 환자로 보입니다.
궂이 언론만의 문제도 아니고....민주화 이후 사회의 모든것이 다 이렇게 변해 버렷습니다..
도빡들의 전성시대
아래 글도 수 많이 쏟아저 나오는 글중에 하나 입니다..
하지만 훨씬 더 합리적이고 그럴싸 하게 읽힌다는 의미에서..올린것입니다..
글의 요지를 줄이면..
미국과 서방측이...노스스트림2 가스 폭파를 우크라인에 뒤집어 씨움으로써 우크라인과 거리두기를 시작 햇다..는 것입니다.
우크라인 전쟁의 승리는 환상이다는 것을 주류 여론으로 공식화 하기 위한 분위기를 만들고, 패전에 따른 체면유지를 위해
노스스트림 폭파 사건의 범인을 우크라인으로 몰아가고 잇다는 것인데..발무트 전투가 어떻게 진행되느냐에 따라 결정이 될 것이다는 것입니다.
현재 발무트는 러시아군에 의해 포위된 것으로 알려져 잇습니다.
전쟁이 끝나 봐야 알겟지요.....
어떻게 전쟁이 끝나냐에 따라 달라질 것이고....그 이후에도 알 수 없기도 하겟지만.
그것이 무엇이던....하루라도 한시라도 빨리..휴전이던 종전이던 전쟁이 끝낫쓰면 좋겟습니다.
As Bakhmut Falls, US May Turn From Ukraine, Starting With Pipeline Story
March 8, 2023
If the Donbass city of Bakhmut falls to the Russians the U.S. may need to save face in order to reverse course in Ukraine, writes Joe Lauria.
Biden and Zelensky in November 2021. (President of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons)
By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
On its face, The New York Times article yesterday, “Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say,” appears intended to exonerate both the U.S. and Ukrainian governments from any involvement in the destruction last September of the Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany.
The thrust of the Times article is that Ukrainians unaffiliated with the Kiev government were the ones who did it, according to the newspapers often cited, unnamed “U.S. officials.”
But a closer examination of the piece reveals layers of nuance that do not dismiss that the Ukrainian government may have had something to do with the sabotage after all.
The story quotes anonymous European officials who say a state had to be involved in the sophisticated underwater operation. The Times goes out of it way to say more than once that that state was not the United States. And while the second paragraph of the story says categorically that the state is not Ukraine either, the article then leaves the door open to possible Ukrainian government involvement:
The Times then makes clear what the consequences would be for the pro-Ukraine “coalition” that Washington has built in the combined West if there was Ukrainian government involvement.
The Times further develops the theme that involvement by the Ukrainian government could destroy the international support for Kiev the United States has built, as well as the immense public backing for Ukraine that the U.S.-led information war has developed.
The Washington Post, which yesterday ran a similar story, reported that the Ukrainian government denied any involvement in the attack. “Ukraine absolutely did not participate in the attack on Nord Stream 2,” said Mykhailo Podolyak, the top adviser to Zelensky, questioning why his country would conduct an operation that “destabilizes the region and will divert attention from the war, which is categorically not beneficial to us.”
Distancing Begins
The newspaper here is allowing U.S. officials to begin distancing the U.S. from Ukraine, claiming Washington has limited influence on Kiev, despite years of evidence to the contrary. The piece appears to be preparing the Western public for an abrupt about face in Ukraine because of a litany of Ukrainian operations the U.S. says it opposed. It is worth quoting the Times at length here:
Of course all this is not to say that the United States did not conduct the Nord Stream sabotage just as Seymour Hersh has reported and yet still cynically blames Ukraine. (Hersh ridiculed the Times story in an email to Consortium News, which sought his comment.)
In directing attention towards the Ukrainian government’s possible culpability, U.S. intelligence gets a twofer: it deflects blame from the U.S. and prepares the public for the United States to justify abandoning Ukraine after all the U.S. has invested in its adventure to weaken Russia and topple its government through an economic, information, and proxy war, all of which have failed.
A consensus is forming among Western leaders that the war against Russia in Ukraine is lost. Thus Washington would have to save face to pull off such a reversal of policy. Insinuating that Ukraine blew up the pipelines of its ally Germany could help the U.S. climb down from its strident position in support of Ukraine.
German Media Also Blames Ukraine on Same Day
Scholz and Biden pose for photos in Oval Office last Friday before private one hour meeting without aides. (White House)
On the same day of The New York Times story yesterday, a joint investigation by a major German newspaper, Die Zeit, and the ARD broadcast network, also reported that the pipeline attack was linked to Ukraine. Die Zeit reports, according to a machine translation:
Just like the Times report, Die Zeit also hedges its reporting, saying that “investigators have not yet found any evidence as to who ordered the destruction.” It might not be credible to immediately blame Ukraine. The sources for these articles may be employing a tactic to gradually prepare the public for more definitive blame later. Die Zeit does provide a level of detail missing from the Times report, however. The investigation
That both articles appeared on the same day in major U.S. and German publications (including The Washington Post) might indicate a degree of coordination between U.S. and German intelligence. On Friday, just four days before the articles appeared, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made an unusual trip from Berlin to Washington, where he immediately went to the White House for a meeting with President Joe Biden.
No aides were present in the Oval Office with the two men. The meeting lasted just over an hour. There was no press conference afterward and Scholz did not allow press on his plane. He returned to the airport after the meeting to fly back to Berlin. Clearly the two men did not want to discuss a sensitive matter over the phone or in a video-link.
(이런식의 추론이 맞는 것일까?......그런데 대부분의 기사들이 이런식의 추론으로 쓰여지고 나중에 되돌아 보면 맞는 경우가 많지요....그래서 이런식의 추론은 계속됩니다..
제대로 정보가 공개 된다면 이런 추론을 할 필요도 없겟지요..그런데 그런 정보는 절대 공개를 하지 않습니다.)
Western Leaders Already Say Ukraine Can’t Win
The Times was fed this piece from U.S. intelligence as stories continue to be leaked showing Western leaders do not believe Ukraine can win the war, despite their public pronouncements, and that Kiev must cut its losses and seek a settlement with Russia. The Wall Street Journal reported 11 days ago:
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told Zelensky at an Élysée Palace dinner last month that he must consider peace talks with Moscow, the Journal reported.
According to its source, the newspaper quoted Macron as telling Zelensky that “even mortal enemies like France and Germany had to make peace after World War II.”
Macron told Zelensky “he had been a great war leader, but that he would eventually have to shift into political statesmanship and make difficult decisions,” the newspaper reported.
Bakhmut: a Turning Point
A building burns in Bakhmut City, Sept. 15, 2022. (Ministry of Defense of Ukraine)
A major turning point in the war that would force a huge decision for Washington may come if Russia can complete its military takeover of Bakhmut.
The battle for the city in Donbass has been raging since last summer and has intensified in the past weeks. Russia has nearly encircled the entire city trapping an estimated 10,000 Ukrainian troops inside. Ukraine had repeatedly played down the importance of Bakhmut, but nevertheless has continually sent in droves of soldiers to their death. Bakhmut is an important hub in Ukraine’s defense of Donbass.
In an interview with CNN yesterday, Zelensky at last admitted Bakhmut’s vital importance to Ukraine. “We understand that after Bakhmut they could go further. They could go to Kramatorsk, they could go to Sloviansk, it would be open road for the Russians after Bakhmut to other towns in Ukraine, in the Donetsk direction,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “That’s why our guys are standing there.”
The fall of Bakhmut to Russia would be a major humiliation for Zelensky and Ukraine, as well as for the United States and Europe. The U.S. would have a major choice to make: continue to escalate the war with the danger that it could lead to a NATO-Russia confrontation that could go nuclear, or press Ukraine to absorb its losses and seek a settlement.
Russia however would then be in a position to dictate terms: possibly recognition of four eastern Ukrainian oblasts as part of Russia after referendums there voted to join the Russian Federation; Ukraine agreeing to be a neutral nation that will not join NATO; demilitarization of Ukraine and disbanding of neo-nazi units.
Portraying Ukraine as an unworthy partner that blew up German pipelines might help minimize the humiliation to the West if this were to happen. Then again neoconservatives in Washington and in European capitals might win out in the battle with realists and continue pressing the war, though the realists at this stage seem to have the upper hand.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe
첫댓글 https://v.daum.net/v/20230311110304506