A reply to Mr. Timothy Snyder

Here is Mr. Timothy Snyder in the New York Review of Books slated for publication in the March 20th 2014 titled Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine:

‘Later that year Motherland was banned from taking part in further elections after complaints that its advertisements incited racial hatred. The most notorious showed dark-skinned people eating watermelon and throwing the rinds to the ground, then called for Russians to clean up their cities. Glazyev’s
book Genocide: Russia and the New World Order claims that the sinister forces of the “new world order” conspired against Russia in the 1990s to bring about economic policies that amounted to “genocide.” This book was published in English by Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine Executive Intelligence Review with a
preface by LaRouche. Today Executive Intelligence Review echoes Kremlin propaganda, spreading the word in English that Ukrainian protesters have carried out a Nazi coup and started a civil war.’

Here is Mr. Snyder in a blog post at the NYRB dated March 1, 2014 titled Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda:

‘Interestingly, the message from authoritarian regimes in Moscow and Kiev was not so different from some of what was written during the uprising in the English-speaking world, especially in publications of the far left and the far right.
From Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review through Ron Paul’s newsletter through The Nation and The Guardian, the story was essentially the same: little of the factual history of the protests, but instead a play on the idea of a nationalist, fascist, or even Nazi coup d’état.’

Dissent, on this issue is not a captive of the crackpot ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ as Mr. Snyder self-servingly argues it:
See these telling argued essays by Paul Craig Roberts:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.or…

http://www.paulcraigroberts.or…

http://www.paulcraigroberts.or…

This essay by Mr. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya at MintPress News and Global Research titled The Road To Moscow Goes Through Kiev: A Coup d’Etat That Threatens Russia:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/r
Here a revelatory quote from Mr. Nazemroaya’s evisceration of American Imperial Hypocrisy:

‘Instead the agreement has been used as
a disguise for the opposition’s takeover of the state. In truth,
the European Union helped broker the agreement as a means of
empowering the Ukrainian opposition. The
leaked phone conversation about the protests in Ukraine between
the US Department of State’s Victoria
Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador in Kiev,
even indicated that the US and EU were planning
on creating a new government in Ukraine. The Nuland tape reveals
that Washington was working to inaugurate a new opposition-led
government in Ukraine with Ukrainian figures that would readily
submit and acquiesce to US and EU demands.

What Nuland and Pyatt discussed is regime change in Ukraine, which
has nothing to do with what the Ukrainian people want and everything
to do with what the US government and its allies need from Ukraine.
If the US government really believed that the Ukrainian people have
the right to determine their future, it would not be busy working to
appoint political figures in the Ukrainian government or trying to
configure how the Ukrainian government would be constructed. Instead
Washington would leave the creation of government in Kiev to the
Ukrainian people.’

At Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza’s essay titled Washington’s Man
Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke
Mr. Stephen F. Cohen on Democracy Now of January 30, 2014:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/
I’m sorry to say that it looks as if the New York Review of Books has become the captive of the Ignatieff/Sunstein/Power coterie of
Cold War Nostalgics, known for their maladroit formulation of R2P, or without the garnish Neo-Liberalism.

StephenKMackSD

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A reply to Mr. Timothy Snyder

  1. Gilbert Doctorow says:

    well done!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.