NYT Scoop about CIA Ukraine bases was done as 200 interviews inside actual CIA buildings

quote:

---

This is the most logical explanation I've seen about how the complicit NYT would be involved in revealing something like this that has been limited to less traditional media outlets.

---

quote:

---

The Times is now reporting the USA (State Dept.) was responsible for the coup in Ukraine (color revolution) and took control over political operations in 2014. We have long suspected this; many have reported exactly this reality; however, this is the first time it has all been admitted.

---

quote:

---

CIA, Ukraine Exchange Pre-Divorce Propaganda

A New York Times exposé outs years of unsavory details about the Ukraine's relationship with the CIA, while a Ukrainian spy chief swats down U.S. messaging. Is a breakup at hand?

---

quote:

---

When intelligence sources line up by the hundred to fill newspapers with “secret” details, they’re almost always doing one of two things: spreading disinformation, or “pre-bunking” embarrassing future revelations. The lavishly overwritten “secret untold story” that puts advance spin on ugly leaks has become a popular genre across this century’s many giant intelligence screwups.

---

quote:

---

The theme of Ukrainians free-lancing the bloody stuff (especially before the war) is prominent. Also noticeable: the bulk of the article’s detailed revelations come from the Brennan era, and Brennan is to an almost humorous degree the hero of the article, displaying Atlas-like resolve, reining in Ukrainian savages on one side of the world while keeping the pusillanimous Obama from losing his nerve on the other.

Meanwhile, on the same day the Times piece came out, aforementioned defense intelligence chief Budanov gave an extraordinary impromptu interview. Asked about the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Budanov said, “I may disappoint you, but we know he died from a blood clot. It’s more or less confirmed. This is not taken from the Internet.”

The comments were a missile up America’s messaging backside. Since February 16th, when Russia’s RIA-Novosti reported Navalny died in custody in Siberia, Americans lined up to call it murder. “Putin killed Navalny, let’s be crystal clear,” said former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, echoing sentiments by the likes of David Axelrod and Zelig-like financier Bill Browder, who seems to be in the background of every Russia/Ukraine controversy. Joe Biden announced 500 new sanctions, saying, “Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death,” while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was more direct: “It is obvious that he was killed by Putin.”

Not so fast, said Budanov, who also knocked down another Russia-panic story. Last week, Reuters cited six sources in reporting that “Iran has provided Russia with a large number of powerful surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.” The tale was instantly converted to a talking point in the ongoing campaign to convince Congress of the urgency of passing a $61 billion aid bill for Ukraine by a Friday deadline. CNBC quoted an analyst saying Iranian weapons kept Russia fighting in Ukraine for “much longer than expected,” but “meanwhile, the future of U.S. military aid for Ukraine looks increasingly uncertain.”

Budankov responded to this by saying the Iranian missiles “are not here” and such information “does not correspond with reality.” He also contradicted statements about Russia deploying North Korean missiles, another recent American fixation. Just last week, “intelligence officials in Washington” told CNN they were “increasingly concerned” about “growing ties” between the two nations, pointing to the missiles while reiterating the need for more funding to combat this new Axis of Evil:

While Russia continues to be supplied by North Korea and Iran the Biden administration has been unable to send new weaponry… because Congress has not approved the required supplemental funding.

Budanov shrugged this news off, too. “While a few North Korean missiles were utilized,” he said, “assertions of widespread use do not hold true.”

It might be coincidence that a Ukrainian intelligence official descibed in a New York Times article as a loose cannon who led a “disaster” of a commando raid just jammed three fingers in Washington’s eye in less than a week. Either way, it’s clear there’s anxiety in Washington about fallout from an interruption of the US-Ukraine security project. Especially in an election year, any war of words between the erstwhile allies could get ugly in a heartbeat.

---