Are US policy makers actually TRYING to start WW III?

[barbos]

Russia is good at making it's puppets look independent. That doesn't mean they are. The people themselves have already admitted they're almost all foreigners.

Nonsense. Even if they are foreigners, they wouldn't be stupid enough to admit it. But Russian speaking Ukrainians have a different accent from other Russians so a person who speaks Russian can tell the difference. The NY Times was unable to find an foreigners among the dissidents. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't any but they don't seem to be the force behind this.

Why wouldn't you expect the east Ukrainians to want to separate? Their Russian-speaking president was overthrown in an illegal coup by western Ukrainians who do not speak their language or share their values or, in some cases, even their religion and are known for their hatred of Russians.

I just want to make accent correction yet again.
You should not make any conclusion based on an accent.
Timoshenko speaks russian with no accent whatsoever, and ukrainian is a second language for her, yet she is a total bitch
Yanukovich is an ethnic ukrainian with ukrainian being a second language too, he is actually pretty bad at ukrainian.

 

[barbos]

To me it seems natural that Kiev isn't just going to roll over and let Russia take the eastern provinces. They don't need US goading to do that. As for intervening militarily to protect Russian speaking people, just because it has been a policy doesn't make it justified. The Russians that were planted by Soviet Union should learn to live in their new host countries and not demand special privileges that they had during the Soviet era.

You show your utter ignorance yet again.
Nobody was planted there. It was merely gifted along with a territory.
Crimea was gifted by Khrishev and South and East were gifted by Lenin.
Western Ukraine was "gifted" by Poland, Hungary and Romania.
And area around Kiev was gifted long time ago by some Tsar, but technically it was gift withn Russia and ukrainians were already there so it meant nothing, same with gifts within SU, they meant nothing at the time.

Basically, Ukraine got few chunks of Russia after SU collapse. Now, if these idiots from Western Ukraine had any sense they would not try to annoy russians by banning russian language and making Bendera (and now Hitler) a hero.


And by the way, Finland was gifted to Finland by Lenin, so shut up and thank him

 

[fromderinside]

You should not make any conclusion based on an accent.

BS. I'm designed to make distinctions by such as accent. Its one of those charming little tendencies we've been dealing with for the last, well, since we began to communicate prior to the time we were primates. If you're from the south and a tornado is coming our way you're probably gonna pray, If you're from Nebraska and a tornado is coming your way you're probably gonna go down into your shelter. I'll remember this and when I hear you speak I'll make assumptions about your tendencies based on your accent. I may be wrong, but, I'll make the assumptions nevertheless.

When I hear your accent its not that I might be wrong, its that I'm probably right, that I continue to make these assumptions. Using acent to evaluate citizenship is as good as one can get without grabbing his papers, which if he isn't citizen, he won't have, while the citizen may have his papers in a somewhat controlled area.

 

[barbos]

A fire set by pro-russians, according to what I've read.

Yes, Ukrainian government said so, you heard that.
In other news Ukrainian government called Hitler a savior.

 

[barbos]

You should not make any conclusion based on an accent.

BS. I'm designed to make distinctions by such as accent. Its one of those charming little tendencies we've been dealing with for the last, well, since we began to communicate prior to the time we were primates. If you're from the south and a tornado is coming our way you're probably gonna pray, If you're from Nebraska and a tornado is coming your way you're probably gonna go down into your shelter. I'll remember this and when I hear you speak I'll make assumptions about your tendencies based on your accent. I may be wrong, but, I'll make the assumptions nevertheless.

When I hear your accent its not that I might be wrong, its that I'm probably right, that I continue to make these assumptions. Using acent to evaluate citizenship is as good as one can get without grabbing his papers, which if he isn't citizen, he won't have, while the citizen may have his papers in a somewhat controlled area.

Don't waste this lecture on me. I speak russian as a first language and had spent 2 years in army with ukrainians.
Eastern ukrainians had no accent for the most part, western just did not speak russian at all

 

[barbos]

Now more about my "US is being manipulated" theory

Yatsenyuk speaks english and has had a lot of friends in high places in US
Saakashvili speaks english and had spent time in US as a lawyer, tons of friends in US including McCain.
Turchinov probably speaks some english. His wife certainly does.
Khamid Karzai - speaks english and lived in US, lot of friends in US
Most of Russian "opposition" supported by US (Navalny, Kasparov, etc) speak english

Putin does not speak english but does speak german and is a big friend of Gerhard Schroeder
Yanukovich does not speak english (has no friends beside russian speaking Putin)

You see where I am going with this?

 

[barbos]

So CIA director admits visiting Ukraine just before operation "Kill unarmed people at random" started.
He called ukrainian side friends and and admitted providing them help.
When asked if he conciders Russia an enemy he avoided the answering "No"

Please tell me how Russia is supposed to belive the crap about NATO being friend of Russia?

 

[laughing dog]

So CIA director admits visiting Ukraine just before operation "Kill unarmed people at random" started.
He called ukrainian side friends and and admitted providing them help.
When asked if he conciders Russia an enemy he avoided the answering "No"

How about not conflating correlation with causation?

Please tell me how Russia is supposed to belive the crap about NATO being friend of Russia?

Who claims that NATO is a friend of Russia?

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay writes:

I hadn't heard of that. Do you have a source?

It's been reported on several business sites. It would probably take me quite a while to track them down.

To me it seems natural that Kiev isn't just going to roll over and let Russia take the eastern provinces. They don't need US goading to do that. As for intervening militarily to protect Russian speaking people, just because it has been a policy doesn't make it justified. The Russians that were planted by Soviet Union should learn to live in their new host countries and not demand special privileges that they had during the Soviet era.

At first they sent Ukrainian troops, but those troops mostly either defected or ran away. The Ukrainian military is not supporting the Kiev regime. They are basically remaining neutral. They even refused to give up any military equipment for the regime. That's why the sudden emergence of well-equipped, well-trained forces of the Interior Department certainly suggests the use of professional mercenaries here as being reported in the German media.

It doesn't matter whether YOU think Russian policy is justified or not. The fact is that it IS Russian policy, and it isn't going to change. So it's a matter that we have to deal with, and we can deal with it intelligently or recklessly. So far, we've chosen the latter course.

That's true. The weak and ineffectual sanctions, and endless talks and rhetoric has been a clear message to Russia that it can get away with more than just Crimea. Putin is running circles around US and EU, and Ukraine ends up getting shafted in the process. But th eproblem isn't US intervention is Ukraine, it's lack of intervention: Kiev government response is entirely predictable and, if I may turn your own words around, it doesn't matter that you this it's unjustified, the fact remains that its their policy and isn't going to change without external intervention.

Kiev can't trust their army. These troops are supposedly a "national guard" under the Interior Ministry. They reportedly sent 4,000 of them to Mariupol but there are probably considerably more elsewhere in the east. But what kind of training have these men had? Are they subject to discipline by Kiev? How many of them are Right Sector neo-Nazis or ultra-nationalists? And where did they get their weaponry from? They have tanks and APCs and other heavy equipment. The Ukrainian army refused to relinquish such equipment even to the Minister of Defense much less the Minister of the Interior.

The fact that Kiev's army is weak is precisely the problem. Kiev cannot give up eastern Ukraine without a fight, and they cannot fight fair so they'll just look the other way as "volunteers" from right sector militia do their dirty work which serves to just escalate the violence. IThe portrayal of the governmetn in Kiev as some sort of hapless victims of US manipulation is hardly accurate.

The Ukrainian army is weak BECAUSE of the government in Ukraine. Chances are that army is made up of about half Russian-speaking troops, and they don't recognize the government in Kiev as legitimate because it ISN'T legitimate. At best the coup leaders represent half the country which might amount to half the military and half the provinces. Why should it be surprising that there should be resistance to the government in Kiev, and that that government should be weak? It doesn't represent the people.

Becuase hte people are polarized and split along ethnic lines. The previous pro-Russian government didn't represent people either, and that's why it was overthrown. And arguably the entire country is a corrupt mess run by a few oligarchs. Anyway let's see how the planned presidential election goes on 25th, that should show how much support the Kiev government has.

Protraying the Kiev government as hapless is pretty much a no-brainer. That they are manipulated by Washington is highly probable given the evidence. After all, our won Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, was intercepted in a phone call a month BEFORE the coup insisting that Artsenyuk should be the new premier even as the EU was negotiating a different agreement. Nuland said "fuck the EU." Then, on the day before the EU-negotiated agreement was to go into effect, protestors in the Maiden attacked the police. Who put them up to it? What motivation did they have when a new, compromise government was supposed to go into effect. It was claimed that the police fired on the demonstrators which is true, but we also know now that there was sniper fire from the protestor side as well. So we don't know who fired the first shot.

But there's really only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this. The US acted covertly to torpedo the EU-brokered compromise and put in the man we wanted which was Artsenyk.

I think you mean Yatsenuyk. But he wasn't a no-name puppet picked by US, but e leader of the largers parliamentary block and was going to be the premier anyway. There was nothing in the famous "Fuck the EU" phone call that would implicate US in the coup or torpedoing anything. If anything, it shows that the US was absolutely right in trying to come up with a quick resolution before the violence escalated, and that the EU efforts were not going to lead anywhere.

Russia is "taking" the Eastern provinces. They are rebelling against the Kiev government because it took power in a coup, and they are seeking independence. There are no Russian nationals among these protestors. The New York Times sent reporters to find them and couldn't. So that claim is just State Department propaganda.

False. Even the separatists have admitted that they have Russian nationals fighting for them, but only that they are just volunteers and "friends". The same unmarked uniforms that were used in Crimea before the takeover showed up in eastern provinces. of course Russia is careful enough not to outright tell New York Times what they are doing.

It wouldn't be surprising that Russia had agents in eastern Ukraine even before the whole controversy began just as we've had agents in western Ukraine. That doesn't negate the fact that the separatist movement is a legitimate eastern Ukrainian independence movement. Russian support for that movement is to be expected, but the people out there in the streets are not Russian citizens. They are Ukrainian citizens. That's really all that the NY Times was looking for. Of course, we can't know how many Russian spies there might be in east Ukraine nor even how many American spies there might be.

The difference is that there isn't a a sizeable English-speaking minority in Ukraine that would watch pro-American news and be more loayl to America than Ukraine. Speaking about American spies vs. Russian spies in Crimea is comparing apples and oranges. Eastern Ukrainian "independence" sounds good, but you'll be wise to remember that Crimean parliament rhetoric was "independence" as well before the referendum, but it took about 2 days for it to completely surrender to Russia.

Meanwhile, Putin has asked the protestors to delay their vote for independence, and has proposed that Ukraine become a federated republic in which the eastern "oblasts" would become autonomous republics within a larger Ukraine, but such a compromise is difficult to craft if we keep harassing Russian diplomats.

Putin made one comment about delaying the mock referendum, but at the same time, is broadcasting information on polling places on state TV and sanctioning Ukrainian expats to vote in Moscow. What Russia is doing is quite different from what it is saying, and for Russia whether in the end they get to annex the eastern provinces or not, its deliberate destabilization in east Ukraine has already served it well by shifting the discussion away from the annexation of Crimea.

Have you never heard of an "overture"? Putin's request to the east Ukrainians was ultimately rejected by them, but the West had a chance to respond to Putin's proposal and that might have persuaded them to delay the referendum, but there was no response so the referendum has gone forward and, as expected, it was passed overwhelmingly. Outside monitors were invited but refused to show up, but hundreds of western reporters were there to cover the election.

Putin's proposal wasn't made in good faith. It's to appease EU and have plausible deniability. Putin is no fool, he realizes that appearances matter so of course he's going to frame the issue as if Russia is just a bystander. If he really had wanted to stop the referendum, he could have easily done so. Besides, there was no reasonable counter for an overture. What would the EU or the US have said in response that they had not done already?

Putin doesn't need to distract attention from Crimea. It's a fait accompli. Every time we've intervened in the this area it has resulted in Russian expansion. We urged the Georgians to attack South Ossetia and Russian peace-keepers stationed there. The result of the Russian annexation of South Ossetia. Then we overthrew the legitimately elected government of Ukraine which led to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Now we're fiddling around in east Ukraine which will result in the Russian annexation of that region.

Crimea was still on the table a few days after the annexation maybe. But further trouble in Eastern Ukraine put that completely off the radar. It's funny, that Russian expansionism is always framed as response to US meddling, even if it's obvious from the execution in Crimea that Russia had planned it very carefully from day one and was just waiting for a pretext, which came in form of the language law passed by Kiev. Which was not something that the US demanded or even realized was happening I suspect.

 

[Jayjay]

He said no such thing.
She asked if there are "russians" among them and he said "No"

Was he a separatist? Check. Was he admitting there are Russians helping them? Check.
Now, please point out exactly where the lie is and provide evidence for it.

Wht the fuck are you talking about?
He said No!
<edit>

"...Though he went on to say that he has asked help from friends who have come here from Russia, Belarus, etc.".

So he is not denying there are Russians, only that there aren't Russian "operatives" as the question was. The exact nature of these "friends" is of course left to the imagination, but if you recall, I never claimed that the separatists had admitted anything more than that. Show me where I lied, or where I was repeating lies, or keep your accusations to yourself.

 

[fromderinside]

Don't waste this lecture on me. I speak russian as a first language and had spent 2 years in army with ukrainians.
Eastern ukrainians had no accent for the most part, western just did not speak russian at all

Actually it wasn't meant for you. Obviously you're convinced. The lecture, as you call it, was intended to provide context to discussions about how and why people make decisions based on such as accents.

 

[fromderinside]

You see where I am going with this?

Perhaps where this guy is going?

 

[Jayjay]

To me it seems natural that Kiev isn't just going to roll over and let Russia take the eastern provinces. They don't need US goading to do that. As for intervening militarily to protect Russian speaking people, just because it has been a policy doesn't make it justified. The Russians that were planted by Soviet Union should learn to live in their new host countries and not demand special privileges that they had during the Soviet era.

You show your utter ignorance yet again.
Nobody was planted there. It was merely gifted along with a territory.
Crimea was gifted by Khrishev and South and East were gifted by Lenin.
Western Ukraine was "gifted" by Poland, Hungary and Romania.
And area around Kiev was gifted long time ago by some Tsar, but technically it was gift withn Russia and ukrainians were already there so it meant nothing, same with gifts within SU, they meant nothing at the time.

Basically, Ukraine got few chunks of Russia after SU collapse. Now, if these idiots from Western Ukraine had any sense they would not try to annoy russians by banning russian language and making Bendera (and now Hitler) a hero.

The "gifts" during Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia were precisely the kind of meddling what made Ukraine as fucked up as it is. Besides, the former Russian areas apart from Crimea were mixed. Moving them back to Russia now means the Ukrainians have to move. In a perfect world, Russia would get the land back, and pay reparations to Ukraine to cover for relocating the ethnic Ukrainians and for their centuries old me screwing Ukraine over. But of course Ukraine doesn't have leverage to even propose something like that.

And by the way, Finland was gifted to Finland by Lenin, so shut up and thank him

This just goes to show how the entire Russian narrative on history is twisted beyond recognition. Lenin never intended Finland or the Baltic states to stay independent, but to join Soviet Union when the time is right. Stalin followed up on that intention - just ask Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia how the "gift" worked out for them. Finland was incredibly lucky that we only lost about 1/4th of our land with reparations and having to kowtow to Kreml for nearly half a century. There is a very good reason why almost every one of Russia's neighbours hate its guts.

Though that "luck", if my military history isn't completely mistaken, is partly because Stalin made a mistake of sending Ukrainian soldiers to Finland to be slaughtered, rather than more winter-experienced Russian troops, thus "gifting" Finland with few early victories that may very well have been why managed to be the only losing country in WW2 that wasn't occupied. Yup, Finland is independent in the form it is today partly because Stalin wanted to punish Ukraine.

 

[tupac chopra]

Who is reporting the US is urging Ukraine to act militarily? That report seems a bit more than incredible given the current state of the Ukraine military. And it is laughable to think the US is provoking Russia to act in the Ukraine.

the military operations against the east began as soon as CIA director Brennan had made his secret trip to Kiev, under a false name.
The timing seems pretty clear. As soon as he left it started.

 

[dystopian]

So we're already seeing clear evidence of voter fraud; people voting more than once, videos of men arrested with hundreds of thousands of filled in 'yes' ballots inexplicably in their possession; pretty much as expected. Real legit.

 

[tupac chopra]

So we're already seeing clear evidence of voter fraud; people voting more than once, videos of men arrested with hundreds of thousands of filled in 'yes' ballots inexplicably in their possession; pretty much as expected. Real legit.

You have no evidence. You are just repeating what you read in the western press.
Show us the actual evidence.
What we know for a fact is that the western media presented bogus documents already and that Obama endorsed forged documents. We also know that NATO produced false photographs.
Obama Endorses a Forgery

We also know that the Western press and politicians have lied, saying that Russia invaded Crimea. It was a lie. Russian already had troops in Crimea and have lease there for their navy till 2042, and an agreement to have up to 25,000 troops there.

 

[tupac chopra]

the neocons goal

To understand what is going on we just have to look at what Neo Cons have said all along. This stuff has not been hidden. Paul Wolfowitz, wrote, after the cold war

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

The neocons don't care whether they have to help neo nazis (as the are in the Ukraine), or al Qaeda (as they are in Syria). They don't care whether they have to lie cheat or steal.
Everything is subservient to their goal.

As Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote

The Wolfowitz doctrine justifies Washington’s dominance of all regions. It is consistent with the neoconservative ideology of the US as the “indispensable” and “exceptional” country entitled to world hegemony.

Russia and China are in the way of US world hegemony. Unless the Wolfowitz doctrine is abandoned, nuclear war is the likely outcome.

 

[boneyard bill]

Who is reporting the US is urging Ukraine to act militarily? That report seems a bit more than incredible given the current state of the Ukraine military. And it is laughable to think the US is provoking Russia to act in the Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military won't act. These are "security forces" from the Ministry of the Interior which have been cobbled together for the occasion. But the Ukrainian military also denied the Kiev government access to any of its weaponry, so who is paying for the tanks and other equipment that these troops have since Kiev is broke? The US government would be a good guess.

I believe we have a radically different definition of "good" because it is a worst-case scenario case with an extremely low probability guess.

Meanwhile, however, the IMF demand has been confirmed on a number of business sites, and the IMF is basically controlled by the US.

Even Iran would not risk war over financial sanctions, so why would anyone think Putin would?

What do financial sanctions have to do with it? They are trivial. Putin WILL risk war over a Western presence in East Ukraine. The Russians have had this as Russian policy all along, and Putin certainly isn't afraid of the Ukrainian "security forces." He went into Georgia, and he will go into Ukraine if he is pushed into it.

The real question is why the Kiev government thinks they can get away with this. Putin's proposal of a federated Ukraine is the perfect solution for them. No Western-dominated government in Kiev is ever going to be accepted by the East. So Kiev should be working with Russia on this, and the US should embrace the idea. But the Kiev leadership seems to be as obtuse and Shakasvili was in Georgia, and they are moving ahead with this operation which will fail when Russia intervenes and the West abandons them.

 

[tupac chopra]

How about not conflating correlation with causation?

Please tell me how Russia is supposed to belive the crap about NATO being friend of Russia?

Who claims that NATO is a friend of Russia?

NATO deputy chief says Russia now an enemy

Russia was considered a "partner", but not any more

 

[boneyard bill]

Why wouldn't they? Are you imagining it's some hard kept secret only the CIA can figure out?

And would they involve themselves in this matter when they have no role in it outside their membership in NATO?

What on earth are you talking about?

Romania and Russia fucking *hate* each other; not in the least over Transnistria, which in case you've not been paying attention, is looking to be next on the list of illegal Russian annexations. Romania has more than enough reasons to get involved with or without US pressure.

You may be right about their right to close their airspace. That is wouldn't cause an international incident when it involves the Deputy Premier of another country is entirely false.

That sort of thing happens frequently enough that it doesn't cause anything more than a few grumbles and nothing else.

They certainly don't act WITHOUT US approval. When is the last time Europe acted independently of the US? You probably have to go back to the Suez Crisis in 1956.

Oh, lol, are you being serious?

First, the EU didn't even exist in 1956; and if you think that the last time an individual country in Europe did something without US approval was in 1956, I've got a few bridges in the middle of nowhere to sell to you.

Secondly, The EU and the US have fought entire *trade wars* with each other, usually with the US drawing the short end of the stick; I suppose you're going to claim that's all because the US wanted it to happen, huh? The EU acts without US 'approval' all the time, since it doesn't need approval from the US on anything. The fact that the EU often synchronizes its foreign policy with that of the US should not be mistakenly taken to mean the EU does whatever the US want; especially when the only time the EU actually does so is when it *suits its own interests*.

Someone set fire to the building where the protestors had retreated to, and that building was a government building that they were claiming as part of their independent republic. The fact that you haven't encountered evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist.

A fire set by pro-russians, according to what I've read.

I haven't seen videos of Odessa, but I have of Mariupol, and the troops are definitely show firing on unarmed civilians.

By all means, produce this video evidence. I rather doubt you saw video of government troops deliberately targeting unarmed people, and knowing you it's probably a case of warning shots being fired and you thinking that's somehow the same thing. I'm willing to be proven wrong, however.

As I've already noted, it was reported in connection with CIA Director Brennan's visit to Kiev which happened some time ago. AFAIK the report hasn't been confirmed by any government agency. I do think they confirmed Brennan's visit after the fact. It was a secret visit while he was there.

In other words, you have yet another *conspiracy theory*; just like the ukraine thread on the previous forum.

Either provide some credible evidence, or don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

The current loan is not conditional on action in the east. It is the prospect of future loans that hinges on that.

First of all, that is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed at first. Secondly, it's STILL fucking bullshit. The IMF has said no such thing; it's said that IF Ukraine loses the east, the blow to its economy could cause the country to need NEW loans. That is not a CONDITION of future loans, future loans would be a CONSEQUENCE of it.

Look, this whole operation reeks of CIA involvement from the events of the Maiden onwards although I don't think it would be productive to re-hash that. We now have news reports, noted above, that Academi/Blackwater forces are involved in the Interior Ministries forces. This, of course, seemed likely from the beginning because you can't put together a well-disciplined force from neo-Nazi street thugs this quickly.

More conspiracy theories.

Of course the US and Europe have been at odds on economic matters. And they have refrained from supporting some US operations. Britain and France both opposed the Vietnam war, for example. But where have they actually ACTED on their own without US approval? The French have intervened in their former colonies in Africa possibly without getting explicit approval from D.C. but standing US policy there has been to give France a free hand in those areas. Maggie Thatcher couldn't even go into the Falklands without US approval.

East Ukraine troops went into Odessa and 40 people were killed. They went into Mariupol and 20 people were killed. Where else have more than a couple of people been killed in east Ukraine? No where. The dying happens when Kiev's troops show up. I suppose you conclude that the East Ukrainians start killing their own people in order to discredit the Kiev government troops, but that is certainly not the most logical conclusion to reach.

As for the dying people, you can see bunches of videos right here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mariupol+protest

As for Odessa, here's one gruesome enough that you need proof of age to view it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfOCxR5mxM

The poster here however, had the nerve to label these unarmed victims as "Russian terrorists." Really, he should leave the propaganda to the State Department.

Here's more on Odessa. You could have looked these up yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=odessa+ukraine

Although there is ample evidence that the US sponsored the coup in Kiev, you continue to attack such notions as "conspiracy theories." Well, that's true. It's theory of conspiracy, but hardly one that is lacking in evidence. But that has been discussed before on these boards. What is undeniable in this situation is that the US is endorsing policies that it has condemned elsewhere beginning with the coup in the Maiden in which a democratically-elected government was overthrown by an armed mob. And while we warned the Yanukovych government not to use force against ARMED protestors in the Maiden, we have not issued a similar warning to the Kiev regime regarding unarmed protestors in eastern Ukraine. We went to war to demand autonomy for Kosovo from a democratically-elected government in Yugoslavia, but reject autonomy for eastern Ukraine from an undemocratic regime that has been installed in Kiev.

The complete hypocrisy of US policy in Ukraine is alone evidence enough to suggest that the US is manipulating these events. And this hypocrisy is absolutely undeniable.