American University in Moscow Publishes Pointed Remarks on U.S.-Russia Conflict Over Ukraine, Exposing Media Lies
July 18, 2014 • 9:42AM

Wrap-around ad by US-Russia.org in July 17, 2014 edition of the Washington Times

The Washington Times yesterday published a second wraparound advertising supplement issued by American University In Moscow (US-Russia.org) with some pointed remarks exposing the dominant media lies about current conflict between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine. The supplement also contains graphic photographs of damage and victims from the Ukrainian government’s assault on the southeast portion of that country. The first wraparound was published last week.

The University describes itself on its website as a former private business school which now “is concentrating on conference, research, and publishing activities to promote U.S.-Russia educational, cultural, and business cooperation.”

The front of the wraparound, a flap that covered part of the Times front page, is questions and brief answers by federal Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.). His remarks include:

  • “The United States seems to be basing all of our policies in the Ukraine as if it’s ninety-nine percent right on one side and one percent right on the other and that’s just not the way it is.”
  • Rather than jumping in full-force on one side or the other, “We should have tried to play a positive role on both sides including reaching out to Mr. Putin instead of vilifying him.”
  • “So we are in a very tight spot right now, there are animosities building between Moscow and Washington and we’ve got to overcome that and reach out to each other. ... shake hands and try to find some common ground and get over this problem we are in right now.”

On the inside of that flap is a brief piece by NYU Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen on “The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities,” which concludes, “The Obama Administration continues to make the situation worse. Despite the opposition by several NATO allies and even American corporate heads, the president and his secretary of state ... have constantly threatened Russia with harsher economic sanctions unless Putin meets one condition or another, most of them improbable.”

A paragraph by American Conservative contributing editor James Carden is titled “The Washington Post Declares War on Russia,” and after mocking the veracity of the Post’s editorial page, asks, “Could it be the Post wants its new Cold War to turn hot?”

A piece by writer Mike Whitney points out that the U.S. is using a divide-and-conquer strategy against the EU and Moscow, expecting Putin to react as with Georgia in 2006, with an invasion; Putin’s refusal to do as expected has led to more provocations with the Poroshenko government “pummeling east Ukraine mercilessly.” But, he points out, “Washington doesn’t have a back-up plan ... there is no Plan B.” He forecasts a new false flag incident like the fire in Odessa to draw Putin into the active conflict.

Former CIA Soviet Foreign Policy Branch analyst Ray McGovern concludes with a terse reminder to Poroshenko that when the Georgians in 2006 provoked the Russians to retaliate militarily for the stated purpose of preventing the killing of Russians in South Ossetia, “Ultimately, President George W. Bush and then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had encouraged [Georgian President] Saakashvili’s adventurism, were powerless to protect him.”