Irresponsible Putin bashing following his UN address

It’s always open season on irresponsibly bashing Vladimir Putin—instead of embracing his sensible solutions to major world problems.

Western media are relentless, marching to the drumbeat of imperial regimes they represent, partnering with America’s killing machine—polar opposite Putin’s global peace and stability agenda, respecting the sovereign rights of all nations, urging unity to achieve common objectives benefitting everyone.

Major media in America long ago lost credibility. They’re self-serving disreputable agents of wealth, power and privilege, substituting misinformation and Big Lies for hard truths, turning growing numbers of people to reliable alternative choices for news, information and analysis, impossible to get from sources like The New York Times.

Its editors headlined “Putin and Obama Have Profound Differences on Syria.” They lied accusing Russia’s leader of US aggression in Syria.

They ignored his all-out efforts for peace—criticizing his alliance with Iran, Iraq, Syria and now China to cooperate in eliminating the scourge of international terrorism.

They repeated the Big Lie alleging Russia’s beefed up military presence in Syria, suggesting it intends using military force to help Assad combat ISIS, ignoring Putin flatly denying it.

Times editors: “ . . . Assad’s main target has always been his domestic opposition, not the Islamic State.”

Fact: Responsible editors wouldn’t tolerate this rubbish in their publications—a bald-faced lie, trivializing the suffering of millions of Syrians terrorized by US-sponsored ISIS death squads.

Syria enjoyed peace and stability until Obama launched naked aggression in March 2011, using imported proxy terrorists to do his dirty work—notably Islamic State fighters, a US creation, not a force that arose on its own.

It couldn’t exist without US support—supplying funding, weapons, training and direction. The vast majority of these terrorists aren’t Syrians; they are imported from scores of regional and other countries, notably European ones.

Times editors accepted Obama’s Big Lie claiming Assad “reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife.”

Fact: So-called “peaceful protests” were US-instigated violence, aimed at toppling Assad, similar to schemes Washington uses to replace numerous independent governments with ones it controls.

Times editors support US imperial wars, its efforts to replace all independent leaders, including Assad—ignoring his overwhelming popular support and the right of Syrians to choose their own leader, free from outside interference.

The Times mocked Putin’s sensible proposal for “a genuinely broad international coalition” to fight Islamic State terrorists. Its editors absurdly claimed his intent is “to supplant the American-led coalition that has been bombing Islamic State militants for over a year . . .”

Fact: Washington and complicit partners support Islamic State terrorists, attacking Syrian infrastructure targets, systematically destroying the country along with its proxy ground force, part of the strategy to topple its government.

Times editors: “Putin . . . has no particular strategy to contain the Syrian conflict.”

Fact: He has the only sensible one—international unity to combat ISIS, easily defeated without Western and regional support.

Times editors: “Obama . . . did not create this catastrophe . . .”

Fact: He bears full responsibility for naked aggression against a non-threatening country—the supreme crime against peace.

Washington Post editors said Putin and Obama are wrong on Syria. They lied, claiming Putin “boldly deployed troops and planes on behalf of Syria’s bloodstained dictatorship.”

They urged nations to reject his sensible plan to combat ISIS, the only way to defeat it. They ignored Obama’s full responsibility for inciting violence, followed by US naked aggression using imported death squads, blaming Assad for his crimes.

They praised Obama’s litany of lies in his deplorable UN address. They criticized his weak effort to topple Assad—with no “strategy . . . to counter Mr. Putin . . .”

Wall Street Journal editors took issue with Obama not being more aggressive than already. Endless devastating wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Donbass and Yemen aren’t enough.

They want them escalated, likely more launched, perhaps against Iran, Russia and China. They’re terrified about the prospect of an effective Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian alliance to combat ISIS, exposing US efforts as phony.

They claim “[t]he Putin-Tehran goal in Syria is part of a strategy to build an arc of influence that extends from Western Afghanistan through the Eastern Mediterranean . . . to isolate US allies in Kurdish Iraq and Israel, while forcing the Sunni Arabs to accommodate the Shiite-Russian alliance or face internal agitation and perhaps external conflict.”

They ignore Putin and Iran’s genuine interest in restoring peace and stability to a troubled region—because of America’s endless wars of aggression, its orgy of violence, a policy of continued mass slaughter and destruction.

Journal editors are notorious Putin bashers. They hammer Obama for not being more aggressive than already. Their strategy for world peace is total war—an agenda for ending life on earth.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at His new book as editor and contributor is “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” Visit his blog at . Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Comments are closed.