And the beat goes on….

This blog isn’t designed to pick sides in any conflict. I have no idea how involved Russian forces are in Eastern Ukraine. There’s no real way for me as an individual to find out exactly what’s going on. What this blog can do is highlight the ongoing themes & narratives throughout The Guardian’s coverage.

I’ve gone into detail about The Guardian’s anti Russian bias via the following blog posts;

Proxy Propaganda (June 2013) 

Prejudiced analysis (September 2013)

“UK establishment’s preferred attack dog on the former Soviet” (January 2014)

Ukraine: A New Front (February 2014)

Now in January 2015 we have the following Editorial;

The Guardian View of war in Ukraine: maintain the pressure on Russia

As I previously stated – I cannot pretend to know exactly what’s going on in Ukraine and I’m sure as many people support sanctions as they do oppose them. But it’s only when we place this editorial next to all of the other articles and opinion pieces written over the last few years that we can easily illustrate how The Guardian has maintained a specific stance against a country and its government.

I will however go into detail about one specific point. The above editorial opens with the following paragraph;

“Donetsk airport, its runways cratered by shelling, its buildings battered and its control tower decapitated, is a modern ruin that has long ceased to function. To lose lives over it seems senseless. Yet such is its symbolism for both sides that the fighting between Ukrainian forces and separatists there goes on unabated, with the Ukrainians now claiming to have recaptured ground they had earlier lost. Meanwhile, diplomacy has all but stalled. As the shells and missiles flew on Monday in eastern Ukraine, Europe’s foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, determined that there were no grounds for any relaxation of sanctions”

It’s interesting to note how the Guardian supported American/UK backed separatists and rebels in Syria when they directly opposed Russian interests – but now The Guardian supports an American/UK backed Government in its battle against separatists and rebels who fight for Russian interests.


Ukraine: A New Front

Over the past few weeks it’s understandable that the media (Guardian included) has taken a keen interest in the turmoil taking place in Ukraine. For all of the articles, opinion pieces and readers comments that discuss this ongoing & fluid situation – I feel that the following comment (posted by RadioPartizan on 26/02/14) sums up what many have noticed with regards to The Guardian’s overall reporting on the subject. The comment was left in response to the following article: Russia puts military on high alert as Crimea protests leave one man dead

Not too much hope of a ‘unity’ government seeing as the people in power in Kiev and western Ukraine has a distinctive nationalist agenda – one of their first acts was to ban Russian as an official language. Such acts are bound to increase the fears of ethnic Russians – many of whom see themselves as Ukrainian first and foremost.
Also I wonder if the guardian are aware that the red and black flag in the photo is that of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army? They were Ukrainian Fascists who at one point fought alongside the Germans in WW2 and were were heavily involved with war crimes against poles and jews. The symbol has been adopted by the right sector ultra nationalists – who seem to have a lot of influence over the interim government.
There are also a lot of reports – and some fairly convincing footage – of former government personal and offices being targeted by ultra-nationalists. There are also a lot of pictures of war memorials being pulled down and daubed in Swastikas and other nazi graffiti.
It seems that the Ultra nationalist militias have taken over security in Kiev and other parts of western Ukraine. Now some of this may well be exaggerated Kremlin inspired propaganda – but the air brushing of the far right out of this situation by the media has been astonishing – so its difficult to know what to believe.
Seeing as the Fascist Svoboda are being blandly described in this piece as ‘nationalist’ ( and have previously been described as ‘moderate’ in other articles in this paper) I really don’t trust the guardian (or any of the western media) any more than Russia Today.
Some links –
This is from Oblast in western Ukriaine and – as far as I understand it – features an Ukrainian ultra nationalist telling the administration there to stand down – at gunpoint.
This is from russia today – pics of war monuments lenin statues being pulled down and daubed with Nazi graffiti.

I have seen no attempt by the likes of the guardian to properly investigate and report the disturbing role of the far right in these events. It is certainly significant and it is certainly being airbrushed out of the news we are seeing – and it is also certainly being used by the Russians for their purposes.
So how about some proper balanced reporting for the first time in this whole sorry mess?
Or are we only going to find about this when the country descends in a Yugoslavia type cluster fuck with each factions nationalist militias marching around ethnically cleansing each other?

UK establishment’s preferred attack dog on the former Soviet

I’ve written frequently about the anti Russian bias on the Guardian website. Myself and others noticed this worrying trend as they reported on the conflict in Syria.

For examples of this writing please see my previous posts;

Prejudiced analysis

Proxy Propaganda

Adding weight to these blog posts I made back in 2013,  Julian Assange recently described the Guardian as…

“… the UK establishment’s preferred attack dog on  the former Soviet”

This quote was taken from an interview with the Wikileaks founder which can be found here. During the interview Assange points to other aspects of the Guardians reporting which could be considered as blatant anti Russian bias.

Prejudiced analysis

This particular subject not only applies to the Guardian but to many, if not all, Western mainstream news organisations that have been assimilated into the corporate borg. As the tragedy in Syria rolls towards its third year, so much has been written about this civil war yet so little actually learnt. The 24 hour news cycle in cyberspace focuses on war crimes, refugees, Asma al-Assad’s shopping habits, sporadic skirmishes and other lowlights from the days events. A running commentary on the ins and outs of the unfolding conflict is welcome but where is the substance? Where is the geopolitical analysis which so many people crave and in doing so are driven to alternative, independent news sources to acquire?

As evidenced in my previous blog post entitled “Rewriting the Syrian Script” – The State Department has played a key role in the fomentation and on-going escalation of the crisis. Working in lock-step with Israel they have covertly and often overtly pressed for regime change in Syria. For all the thousands of articles, editorials and opinion pieces written on the subject  – how come so few have stopped to ponder the question ‘why’? The same goes for Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have spent millions (possibly billions) funding and arming the rebels. Where is the in-depth analysis on these particular players?

In contrast, we are repeatedly informed that Bashar al-Assad fights his opponents in order to cling on to power for his family dynasty. For protecting his interests he has been compared to Hitler – whilst the Jihad sponsors in the Gulf, attempting to carve out their own interests in an equally brutal manner, have been compared to no one. Russia’s involvement in protecting its interests has repeatedly been put down to Mediterranean naval bases and arms contracts – whilst Israel’s quiet yet determined, pro war lobby groups, work towards regime change in Syria with the mainstream media refusing to analyse their motives.

The silence is deafening.

I’m going to give you a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  The Israeli Government recently granted a U.S. subsidiary of a company called Genie Energy the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights. The company is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and its shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch. This development was documented online (including Bloomberg) far and wide and would obviously be an important factor when considering Israeli and U.S involvement in the Syrian war – but when we type ‘Genie Energy Golan Heights’ into the Guardians own search bar we are told…. No results!

NO - results

Here is a list of reasons (taken from a recent YouTube comment) as to why this Western backed insurgency in Syria could be taking place – non of which have been discussed in any great detail by the aforementioned press.


Shut down Syrian independent banking system
Split anti-Zionist alliance; Iran-Syria-Lebanon-Palestine
Destroy Russian-Iranian-Syrian Silk Road Pipeline
Benefit Israeli Leviathan gas, oil & transportation industry
Benefit Al Saud family’s/Qatari gas industry
Benefit Industrial Military Complex multi billion contracts
Allow Israel annex South Lebanon for water supply & Golan Heights for oil & gas
Advance Zionist Agenda for “Greater Israel”; New World Superpower

Whilst the complicit, mainstream media continues to paint the enemies of Western, financial hegemony in an evil, nefarious light – who’s motives are always callous and cold – it simply ignores its paymasters motives in the conflict altogether. Articles refer to ‘American strategic interests’ but seldom delve any deeper. Writers refer to ‘humanitarian intervention’ as if to suggest the repressive petro-monarchies in the Gulf spend their millions on mercenaries with nothing but charitable intentions.

I pay my respects to the small number of journalists within the mainstream media who challenge the status quo and inform their readers of the true motives behind these complicated conflicts – some of whom work directly for the Guardian. This blog decided to specifically target the Guardian as a way to highlight how far our ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ media had strayed off course.

On that note – I’ll leave you with something our mainstream media needs more of: Illuminating, in-depth, geopolitical analysis. This is a video by the excellent James Corbett, entitled Who Is Really Behind the Syrian War?’

Proxy Propaganda

As the rhetoric between the USA and Russia intensified during their ongoing proxy war in Syria, the Guardian firmly maintained its parroting of Western policy. On a constant basis Russia has been scrutinized and attacked by mainstream media for its position on the crisis.

The G8 countries met this weekend to negotiate and here is a Guardian headline;

Syria crisis: Russia faces isolation at G8

Underneath that headline you’ll find no follow-up remarks as to why or even how Russia will face isolation. Just one biased, opinionated headline is given with no actual journalism on why the headline has been written in the first place. What makes this statement even worse is that far from being backed up by facts it is actually, in some respects, opposite to the truth. As noted by one regular commentator;

18 June 2013 9:03am

“Syria Crisis: Russia Faces G8 Isolation”

Ironic, since all the evidence and polls suggest that the actual voters of the G8 countries support Putin’s approach to Syria, not those of their own governments. The headline could read “Syria Crisis: Russia in line with Western public opinion, other G8 governments isolated.” So who’s pulling Cameron’s strings on Syria? Why is he so keen to support the proxy war of US hawks and Gulf dictators against Iran and ignore his own voters?

The following day the Guardian once again bases its statements against Russia on anonymous British diplomats by stating that;

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is willing to see the removal of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, but only if it leads to a balanced government and not a dangerous power vacuum of the kind that followed Saddam Hussein’s removal in Iraq, British officials believe after two days of intensive talks at the G8 summit.

To those who were actually keeping an eye on the G8 these reports seem completely contrary to what actually happened. Here are 2 comments from the readers that summarize this point.


We’ve had this time and time again. Unnamed UK officials ‘spin’ that Russia is moving towards Britain’s position and time and time again the press dutifully report it as fact and time and time again it’s bollocks. The Russians have said from Day One that their concern is not whether Assad stays or goes but that there is peace and stability in Syria


“Vladimir Putin may allow Assad to go if power vacuum in Syria is avoided”
Quite astounding doublespeak on the Guardian’s behalf. And further proof-positive that this newspaper is a mere mouthpiece for Whitehall and UK foreign policy.

This anti-Russian tirade has been going on since the conflict began (evidently less so since a military stalemate and political polarization occurred).

Here are some clippings from an editorial called “Syria: Assad’s last stand” published by the Guardian on Tuesday the 4th of December 2012.

  • “Bashar al-Assad has ringed the city with a force 80,000-strong and is reported by his Russian interlocutors to have lost all hope of either victory or escape”

  • “Over 20 months into this conflict, there are signs, too, that Russia is having second thoughts. Its military support of Assad was doomed to failure from the start”

  • “Russia’s position is weaker now that the rebels are stronger militarily, and that European support for the Free Syrian Army means money and arms are now flooding in”

Listed below are 3 more articles to back up this claim of anti Russian bias regarding Syria:

Thursday 9 August 2012 > For the record, Russia and China failed Syria

Tuesday 7 February 2012 > Syria: Russia on the wrong side

Tuesday 24 May 2011 > Let’s call Russia’s bluff on Syria

There are many more examples of this proxy propaganda on the Guardian website and in time I will update this post with more links.