He Said, She Said.

Good morning. It is Saturday, 12. I’m Fauziah Ibrahim.
And I’m Johanna Nicholson. You’re watching Weekend Breakfast. There are fears Russia is creating a pretext for a chemical attack on Ukraine after claiming it [the Russian military] found US-backed biological weapons operations in the besieged nation.

That’s how the ABC News24 Weekend Breakfast crew introduced their broadcast at 0800 AEDT. But how on earth Russia’s alleged discovery of a Ukrainian biological weapons development program morphed into fears of a Russian chemical weapons attack on the Ukraine?

This is how.

United Nations Security Council meeting (March 12th).

Vasily Nebenzya (Feb. 3rd, 2020)[A]

According to the permanent representative of the Russian Federation:

We [the Russian Federation’s armed forces in the Ukraine] discovered a truly shocking emergency clean-up by the Kyiv regime of traces of the military biological program. It was being implemented by Kyiv with the support of the US. Russia has documents which confirm that in the territory of Ukraine there was a network of at least 30 biological laboratories in which dangerous experiments have been conducted. They aimed at strengthening the pathogenic qualities of the plague, anthrax, cholera and other lethal diseases using synthetic biology.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield (Jan 12th, 2021)[B]

Nebenzya’s American counterpart rejected his remarks:

Russia’s calling of this meeting is a false flag effort in action. Exactly the kind we have been warning about, including from Secretary Blinken here last month. Russia has a track record of falsely accusing other countries of the very violations that Russia itself is perpetrating. And given that and consistent with our previous statements, we have serious concerns that Russia may be planning to use chemical or biological agents against the Ukrainian people.

It may be coincidence, but Thomas-Greenfield was essentially channelling the Ukrainian president, Volodymir Zelensky. Just before the Security Council meeting The Guardian reported,

“Allegedly, we are preparing a chemical attack,” Zelenskiy said in a video address on Thursday. “This makes me really worried, because we’ve been repeatedly convinced: if you want to know Russia’s plans, look at what Russia accuses others of.”

So, that’s where the chemical weapons Thomas-Greenfield and the Weekend Breakfast crew spoke of comes from. Then Weekend Breakfast took the Thomas-Grennfield/Zelensky chemical attack claim as a matter of legitimate concern, while rejecting Nebenzya’s biological attack claim outright.

Why?

----------

Let’s pause for a minute and think about what we were told.

The Russian Federation may have abundant proof of a joint US-Ukraine biological weapons development program, as one may infer from their represenative, but they didn’t substantiate their claim. No supporting evidence was forthcoming. Yes, I know, by its very nature, such evidence is a military secret and thus cannot be disclosed publicly (I clearly remember then British PM Tony Blair pushing for the invasion of Iraq during a presser two decades ago. Asked by the journalists to present any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, Blair waved a piece of paper, allegedly outlining the evidence, and saying something to the effect of “See? See? It’s all here, but I can’t show you, because … it’s a secret!”).

At this moment, instead of addressing the reply of the US representative, I’ll jump to the Ukrainian President’s contribution. One stone and two birds, so to speak. I’ll go back to the original American addition in Thomas-Greenfield’s comment after that.

Zelensky’s point is that the Russians lie: they knowingly throw around false accusations, when they themselves are ready to do what they accuse others of planning to do. He may be right that Russians lie, but the question is can he cast the first stone?

Zelensky’s opinions on matters of lying, I’d say, carry authority because he himself seems to have much first-hand experience in telling fibs and then doing exactly what he accused others of doing.

(source v)

Okay, you may say, Zelensky may not be a trustworthy source, but that doesn’t prove he’s lying on this subject. The thing is that the burden of the proof falls on the accuser, not on the accused. Zelensky is the accuser. Is not only Nebenzya who must present credible, sufficient evidence of biological weapons to be believed. That applies to Zelensky and his claim of chemical weapons as well. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I can’t remember Zelensky or Thomas-Greenfield presenting any evidence whatsoever the Russians are preparing a chemical attack. And yet, their claim becomes the news, while Nebenzya’s is ignored.

----------

This is where we come back to Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Among the things I really hate with a passion in the way Americans speak, the “ma’am” is prominent. But given that Thomas-Greenfield is American she may not only find it acceptable, but even preferable.

So, here goes: with all due respect, Ma’am, before speaking of track records of falsely accusing other countries, you’d better remember this:

At the UN, Colin Powell holds a model
vial of anthrax, while arguing that
Iraq is likely to possess WMDs.
(Feb. 5th, 2003)[C]

Glass houses are not the best place to start throwing stones.

----------

Judging by recent experiences I had with otherwise intelligent and decent people I know, I’d strongly advice against attempting to speak about this subject with others. Regardless of the side (the predominant pro-Ukrainian or minority pro-Russian) people won’t listen. Tempers flare quickly. It’s not merely intolerance, is angry fanaticism. It’s not only reasonable concern, is hysteria. Too much emotion, too little reason.

The mere name, no questions asked, attracts hostility (source)

If you believe you deviate in any measure from the prevalent consensus (NATO immaculately saint, Russia as the incarnation of Satan) think twice before engaging. At the very least, you should be very, very cautious. In other wars (like the invasion of Iraq) there was room, however limited, for dissent; it didn’t change anything, but it didn’t attract near-universal hostility. With this war things are different. In this war, the only acceptable opinion is either black or white. No shades of grey whatsoever are allowed.

It’s totaler Krieg within and without the battlefield.

In part, this may be the result of the Ukrainian information (aka propaganda) campaign. Their campaign is slick and savvy, if not necessarily truthful, while the Russian one is slumbering and awkward, the experts say. Moreover, the Ukrainian party – they add and I agree, for what it is worth – won the information war:

(source)

You may think that people who can’t tell the Soviet Union from the Russian Federation can’t possibly exert much influence. But something tells me two-bit spontaneous agenda-pushers coming straight out of the woodwork may have put their grain of sand too.

But the local media has also played a part, in my opinion a probably big one, in that. To paraphrase Paul Barry, it’s what the media doesn’t show as much as what it does. It’s what the media doesn’t say as much as what it says. It’s as much what they choose to leave aside and what they choose to focus on.

An example? The Weekend Breakfast coverage of the UN Security Council meeting.

Another? The ABC’s Isabella Higgins reporting from Lviv (March 3rd):

IH: Even in safe places like Lviv, these air raid sirens are becoming part of daily life. It means throughout the day people have to run and quickly take cover. A ritual that's become all too familiar for Lilya Romanova and her two daughters.

TRANSLATION: On the second day, the children woke up and made pistols with their Lego to kill the enemy. Our elder daughter doesn't remember dancing anymore. They say they must kill.

IH: Too young to fight, but eager to do their part.

Yes, little children eager to do their part in the patriotic killing. Inspirational.

I sincerely hope I am mistaken, but Antony Loewenstein’s indictment of The New York Times as promoter of the invasion of Iraq one day may apply to the Australian media.

----------

That’s not the worst that could happen. This suggests a worse possibility:

(source see also)

Luckily, there is no real reason to fear ISIS-like neoNazi terrorists equipped not with old AK47s and RPGs and IEDs, but with Stinger ground-to-air and Javelin anti-tank missiles pouring out of the Ukraine, even after at least 16 thousand foreign volunteers have already joined the Ukrainian side (where they will join common criminals). After all, President Zelensky is Jewish and, besides, there really aren’t any neoNazis in the Ukraine. Isn’t that right, David Lipson and Eric Campbell?

 

Image Credits:

[A] Vasily Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations. Date: Feb. 3rd, 2020. Source: WikiMedia. Author: president.tatarstan.ru. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Nobody endorses me or my usage of the file.

[B] Official Portrait, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Date: Jan 12th, 2021. Source: WikiMedia. Author: U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Work in the public domain. 

[C] At the UN, Colin Powell holds a model vial of anthrax, while arguing that Iraq is likely to possess WMDs. Date: Feb. 5th, 2003. Source: WikiMedia. Made from video from this link. Work in the public domain.