Send this article to a friend:


Seymour Hersh On The Mainstream's Ukraine Narrative Shift
Tyler Durden

The clandestine bombings of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines under the Baltic Sea happened on September 26, 2022. This coming Tuesday will mark the one-year anniversary. The prospect of a direct NATO-Russia war has only continued to grow since as a possible nuclear WW3-level disastrous catastrophe, still looming darkly on the horizon. 

Legendary American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in his latest article has bluntly stated, "The reality is that Volodymyr Zelensky’s battered army no longer has any chance of a victory." Whereas previously there was a vast chasm between Hersh's conclusions and those of mainstream Western press reports, this is no longer the case... just see The Economist this week:

The narrative dissonance must be particularly jolting for average Americans who up till this point have been treated to constant rosy pictures and overly optimist reports of Ukraine "winning" or at least "pushing back" the Russians. This was certainly the mainstream's driving theme at least throughout the first year of war, and even into the summer. 

Hersh in his Thursday Substack report cited an unnamed intelligence source who "spent the early years of his career working against Soviet aggression and spying." That source said that despite some continued and recent attempts to paint the Ukraine counteroffensive as making slow but steady progress, the truth is the opposite. 

"It’s all lies," the source told Hersh. "The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going."

"The truth is if the Ukrainian army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die any more, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House," the intelligence source explained. 

This conclusion was perhaps given some degree of confirmation when Zelensky met with Biden on Thursday. Lackluster is how we previously generally characterized the mood. Nothing new of importance was announced by Biden, other than a measly $325 million military aid package from already approved funds. There was also the mention of "limited" or "a little" US long-range missiles approved for Kiev.

Also, Congress is still fiercely divided over the question of approving $24 billion in Ukraine aid for the next fiscal year. All of this strongly suggests even hawkish Ukraine supporters are increasingly wary of pouring more billions into the losing side, which could only ensure a further spiral between Moscow and NATO, and more endless death and destruction.

Here's more from Hersh's intelligence source, as summarized in the journal Modern Diplomacy

"There were some early Ukrainian penetrations in the opening days of the June offensive," the official said, "at or near" the heavily trapped first of Russia’s three formidable concrete barriers of defense, "and the Russians retreated to sucker them in. And they all got killed."

After weeks of high casualties and little progress, along with horrific losses to tanks and armored vehicles, he said, major elements of the Ukrainian army, without declaring so, virtually canceled the offensive. The two villages that the Ukrainian army recently claimed as captured "are so tiny that they couldn’t fit between two Burma-Shave signs" — referring to billboards that seemed to be on every American highway after World War II.

Thus the situation for Ukraine forces couldn't be more dire at this moment, yet there still doesn't appear any willingness on the part of Kiev's backers to push both sides to the negotiating table. However, there have been scattered reports of 'secret' dialogue behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, Ukraine - it appears with direct targeting and intelligence help from Washington - continues to mount riskier and riskier attacks on targets inside Russia and Crimea. Friday's Storm Shadow missile attack on Sevastopol's Black Sea Fleet naval headquarters is a case in point. It may have taken out top Russian naval commanders (as Ukraine is currently claiming) and marks one of the biggest escalations of the war so far.

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

Send this article to a friend: