Video Roundup: Censorship, Ukraine, Middle East

Today was a busy day on Youtube, with lots of worthwhile video discussions available. But let’s start with an older video that addresses a topic that has taken on urgency in the years since it first appeared. Udo Ulkotte was a top political and foreign affairs editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a prestige newspaper in Germany. He died in 2017 but, before that he went public in a book that was posthumously published in English:

Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA: A Confession from the Profession

Gekaufte Journalisten: Wie Politiker, Geheimdienste und Hochfinanz Deutschlands Massenmedien lenken

In this video he provides a summary of his profession. I’ve transcribed a few snippeets from the 13 minute video:

I've been a journalist for about 25 years and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how far the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return and I'm going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past. They are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany but all over Europe.

I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don't like to have this situation again because war is never coming from itself. There is always people behind it to push for war--and this is not only politicians, this is journalists too.

I'm fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic--not in a democratic country where we have press freedom, where we have human rights. ... I write pro-American. I wrote pro-American. I was supported by the Central Intelligence agency, by the CIA.

You ask what have I done for intelligent agencies. Most of the journalists you'll see in foreign countries claim to be journalists, and they might be journalists European or American journalists but many of them, like me, in the past our so-called non-official cover that's what the Americans call that I have been a non-official cover. What that means is, you work for an Intelligence Agency, you help them if they want you to help them, but they will never never when when you when you are when you are locked or when [the local authorities] find that you're not only a journalist but a spy too, the [CIA] will never say, ‘Oh, this was one of our guys.’ They will not know you. That’s non-official cover. [Think of the WSJ reporter who’s imprisoned in Russia right now.] So I have helped them in several situations, and I feel ashamed for that now, like I feel ashamed that I have worked for a very [reputable] newspaper like the Frankfurter Allgemeine, because I was bribed by billionaires, I was bribed by the Americans not to report exactly the truth.

I think it is especially the case with British journalists, because they have a much closer relationship. It is especially the case with Israelis. Of course with French journalists for a part, not that big as that was German or with British journalists. It is a case for Australian journalists, for journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, from--well, there is many countries in the Arab world like Jordan, for example, like Oman, Sultanate of Oman. ... You'll find they are puppets on a string of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Next up aree two videos by Danny Davis that have a direct bearing on our earlier posts today. The first is actuall just five minutes long, and I’ve transcribed a pretty fair portion of it. The next is about a half an hour, and I’ve transcribed just a short portion that’s a good follow on from the first—but the video is very good:

Russia Has Learned their Lessons in Ukraine

Q: Let's talk about this capturing of Avdeyevka. What does it mean for the war as far as strategy and future assaults?

A: I think that it's a much bigger deal than many in the west are thinking, because most are just looking at a map and they're saying, 'Okay, well Russia had been investing in this for a long time.' I mean, this had been kind of on the front line since 2014, where the Ukraine side had been building up a lot of it into a fortress. Then the Russians, about a year ago, tried to take the city and they just completely failed with huge loss. But then they finally came back and clawed it back and took it. That by itself is a meaningful thing because it shows the relentlessness of the Russian offensive--but it's a much bigger issue than that, because it appears that the Ukrainian leadership lost control of their forces. They had some forces in a position near the city, just on the outskirts. It was basically an impregnable fortress that they could have defended for a long time--probably many more weeks if they wanted to. Apparently from the the top they were told to do that. This [UKR] third assault brigade withdrew because they viewed it as a suicide mission, and once they left then the whole rest of the force just abandoned the field.

In the subsequence [sic] of that, General Syrski went back and said, 'Oh, I actually gave the order for them to leave so as to protect the people. But much evidence on the ground, including from some of the fighters, says that that's not how it happened. What that implies is that the next phase is going to be even more difficult, because do the Ukrainian troops have confidence in their leadership? Are they going to continue to fight and will the Russians push even harder now? There's some evidence that they're going to. So this could be an opening round to a much bigger advance by the Russians.

Q: Well, let's talk about what's happening on the ground. Will Russian forces be able to keep pushing on or do you think at some point they will eventually run out of momentum?

A: A year ago in May, when Russia had their big victory when they took Bakhmut, the Russian offensive was basically spent at that point. They didn't have anybody else to continue the fight forward, and it basically stayed there until recently. They've started making additional gains around there. This time they appear to have learned their lesson and there's at least one force of about 40,000 gathering around the city of Mariupol and then 110,000 at various points along that map you showed just a second ago. So it appears that Russia does have fresh forces to throw into any penetration they make along any of the five major areas they're pushing right now.

After Avdiivka, What's Putin’s Next Target?

Russia is putting lots of pressure right now and even, as of this morning, they're continuing to make moves to the west. Now as I also mentioned, there's a a whole battle group of of up to 50-60,000, 40-60,000. They're fresh troops. Where they're going to go, where they're going to plug in, is unknown. Right now, Russia is moving up on five different points and Ukraine doesn't have the reserves to keep moving back and forth. But they also may not have the will. When you know that your commander in chief just lost a battle and lost control of it, that's the bigger issue. He gave orders for his troops to hold the city and they chose not to. They disobeyed the order and ran.

Oh! I’ve got a third Danny Davis video, with Matt Hoh. They’re definitely on fire—for 42 minutes or so:

More Violence in the Red Sea w/Matt Hoh fmr State Dept

Now, they do spend the first ten minutes talking about the Reaper shootdown by the Houthis. It’s unquestionably a big deal:

The Houthis, who we like to ridicule, and talk about how backwards they are, have just shot down one of our big drones: the MQ9 Reaper. Yeah, the mainstay of the American military's aerial surveillance fleet, which, you know, is kind of important for us to have.

But the remaining 32 minutes or so are largely devoted to US domestic politics, meaning, the fact that the Israel Lobby, as an extension of Israeli genocidal policies, own the US government. Netanyahu can thumb his nose at all civilized, normal people around the world and get away with it as long as the US continues to send a constant streaam of C17s stuffed with 2000 lb. bombs to Israel. And that will continue because Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby (AIPAC) own the United States. How does this work?

I think what you have in the case of the White House's calculation on how American domestic politics is affecting its Israel Palestine policy is that they—the White House—calculate that the loss of the Israel Lobby is a much greater harm than the loss of progressive voters ... the White House's calculation, I believe, is that that is not as big a deal as losing the Israel Lobby.

Even if it doesn't make sense strategically, even if it will cause you to destroy your entire nation, basically bringing this house down around you politically, it is the best thing for you [politically]. Who, then, are the constituents of those political decisions? Right—it's certainly not the people of Ukraine, it's certain certainly not the American taxpayers, right? It's certainly not the whole world for having to endure this war for two years now with all its consequences all its costs and all its risks to go into now a third year of it, without any realistic attempts at ending it—other than just to ask for more money so we can s throw more men into this meat grinder.

They never do actually say who those constituents are, but here’s a hint: It’s the American Israel Political Action Committee—AIPAC.

Do we have space for more videos? We turn to Judge Nap. Alastair Crooke is always reliably incisive. He’s convinced that Israel will blunder into Lebanon, because both Israel and the US have painted themselves into a corner—they have no viable alternatives.

Alastair Crooke: Israel/US Fatal Mistakes

Judge Nap also spoke with Larry Johnson, who is also totally convinced that Israel is going into Lebanon:

Larry Johnson: Will Israel Invade Lebanon?

Israel is going to invade Lebanon. I heard from one of my one of my buddies, a retired CIA officer, who has been in touch with somebody who knows. And he said, without a doubt, Israel has made the decision, they're going to invade Southern Lebanon. You know, the rational part of me says, I hope to God they don't do that because it will lead to the destruction of Israel, but I understand how some people out there feel--Wait! If Israel does this and it will end up destroying them, great! Let them do it!

It's this combination of arrogance and hubris that's born out of insecurity. You know, you've dealt with those people who are so insecure that they're always bragging about themselves. ... So here's Israel insisting, 'Oh, we've got the best military in the Middle East.’ No, they don't. They have probably the most brutal, undisciplined, unprincipled military in the Middle East--as has been demonstrated by their repeated killing of civilians, women, children, without any regard. They routinely attack hospitals and members of the press, and they get away with it by labeling them as terrorists. Everybody's a terrorist so, as long as they're a terrorist, as long as you declare him an enemy of the state ... you can do whatever you want to them. But, yeah, Israel is going to escalate this and Hezbollah is in a position. They're an organized Army, they've got very heavily defended defensive positions-- almost equivalent to what the Russians built as the Surovikin Line in southern Ukraine--and they have long range missiles that up to this point they have not used. ... They will use them and all of a sudden Israeli citizens who moan, 'Oh, we're always under rocket attack' but [those rocket attacks] rarely cause casualties or are minimal, I think that will change if Israel launches this invasion of Southern Lebanon. They're going to be looking at mass casualties in Israel.

Israel's brutality against civilians is, I mean, it--really, we we haven't seen this level of brutality by a military force against unarmed civilians since the Nazis entered into Eastern Europe.