Scott Ritter didn’t really re-discover America when he quoted Aeschylus, the ancient Greek playwright who had made history by saying that in war, truth is the first casualty.
Who is this guy Scott Ritter, pray tell?
A former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer with extensive (and intensive) service behind his belt, first in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, then in General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and, from 1991 to 1998, as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations in Iraq.
To find out more about his experiences, try Scott Ritter’s book SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.
And who, pray, was this guy Aeschylus?
Born in the year 525 (or 524, no eyewitnesses have survived) B.C., in Athens, Aeschylus has been recognised as the first of classical Athens great dramatists. One of the fighters for the Greek side in the famous battle of Marathon (490 B.C.), all nibs agree it was Aeschylus who raised the emerging art of tragedy to great heights of poetry and theatrical power.
Scott Ritter contends that Ukrainian authorities and their Western information warfare advisers must have learnt from Aeschylus’s playwriting devices. They have put together modern-day tragedies in Ukrainian communities such as Mariupol and Bucha. To Ritter, this is a clear sign that outright lie is not just a by-product, but also a weapon of war.
Herewith a piece of his analysis, verbatim:
The main source of the Bucha tragedy reports is a videotape, taken by the Ukrainian National Police, of one of their convoys driving through a street in the town. A dozen or so corpses litter the roadway, many of them appearing to have been bound. This video has gone viral, producing a pandemic of anguish and anger that has swept over much of the world, capturing the attention of heads of state and the head of the Catholic Church alike, resulting in a tidal wave of condemnation and outrage directed at Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. The cause-and-effect relationship between the video and the global backlash is clear – the former could not exist without the latter.
What conclusions does Ritter come to?
Here they are:
One of the first lessons of objectivity is to slow things down to make sure that fact is not obscured by emotion. The Bucha videotape is disturbing. The video has been released in its present form, it appears, with the express intent of producing a visceral “shock and awe” moment for the viewer. If this was indeed the case, then those who released it – the Ukrainian National Police – have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination. Or that of their advisors, as the case may be.
The linkage between the dead and the Russian military was established immediately, without any fact-based data to back it up, and subsequently echoed in all forms of media – mainstream and social alike. Anyone who dared question the established “Russia did it” narrative was shouted down and belittled as a “Russian shill,” or worse.
That these conclusions are the by-product of mass hysteria is beside the point – why seek to be objective when the narrative fits every stereotype that had been carefully assembled beforehand by the same people parroting the Bucha story today. Social “preconditioning” of an audience unused to critical thinking is an essential step in getting this audience to accept at face value anything that is put before it, regardless of how egregiously the facts of the story strain credulity. And let’s be clear – the Ukrainian narrative of the events in Bucha seems to stretch credibility.
Scott Ritter then gets on the trail while the footprints are still hot. Again, verbatim:
The chronology of the narrative produces the first red flag that the story being peddled by Ukraine, and echoed in the West, is not what it seems. It is established fact that Russian troops evacuated Bucha on March 30. Ukrainian National Police began entering Bucha on March 31, and that same day the mayor of Bucha announced that the town was fully under the control of Ukrainian officials. At no time was there any suggestion by the mayor or any other Ukrainian official of mass killings undertaken by Russia. The videotape in question was released by Ukrainian authorities on April 2; it is not certain if the video had been taken earlier, or on that day. What is certain is that the images shown in the video differed sharply from the narrative initially portrayed by the mayor.
Thus Scott Ritter. What happened next was even more shocking.
Denying the allegations outright, Russia, a United Nations Security Council permanent member, demanded that this body’s meeting be summoned forthwith. Adding she wanted to discuss what the Russian Foreign Ministry has called the Ukrainian provocation in Bucha.
For her part, Russia has vehemently denied the allegations, and has requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss “criminal provocations by Ukrainian soldiers and radicals” in Bucha, as Russia’s Foreign Ministry described it. Great Britain, holding the Security Council presidency at the moment, said a debate on Ukraine has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 4. There’s no need to bother members from their slumber by meeting immediately.
What does it say?
It says that the British, and others in on the hoax, need to buy time so the political fallout from the alleged massacre in Bucha can grow some more.
Here’s U.S. President Joe Biden: “You saw what happened in Bucha.” This feigned outrage would lead him to say that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is a war criminal.”
That this would be for an independent court of justice to decide, somehow eluded his mind, or what’s left of it. Considering that it was the United States of America who had refused to recognise the International Criminal Court and its decisions, Biden’s omission may be understandable. Not acceptable, though.
Of course, Biden didn’t forget to use the opportunity to push again for sending American weapons to Ukraine. Another gaffe: it turned out he wanted to send NATO weapons from Turkey, and these turned out to be Russian-developed and Russian-made missile systems.
Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor of the court, has made it known last month that he had launched an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine.
To do that, he would have to travel to Ukraine forthwith, and start investigating. Except: neither Khan nor anybody from a forensics team that would conduct the probe of the crime scene, has yet set foot anywhere near Ukraine.
It would be their job to oversee autopsies on the victims to establish the time of death, mechanism of death, and whether the victims had died where they were allegedly found, or if their bodies had been moved there from another location.
What does this strange delay show?
Khan hasn’t yet exchanged a single word with the Ukrainian National Police, nor has he looked at their close relations with members of the Ukrainian far right, including the infamous Azov Battalion.
Is it intentional, or simple forgetfulness?
Is it fear that proper questioning may blow the lid off this can of worms and prove the real tragedy: Ukrainians were killing Ukrainians. And Russians living in Ukraine, to complete the picture.
Meanwhile, across the Big Pond …
Information about the Russia – Ukraine war leaked to the media by what the would-be journalists have taken to call “unnamed intelligence – or Pentagon – sources familiar with the situation” wasn’t “rock solid.”
In fact, several American intelligence (what a strange description) admitted that they had made up outright some claims, all to win what they described as “info war” against the Kremlin.
This would be funny, if it wasn’t so tragic: the NBC News report on this story said that those officials “admitted to, and boasted about, releasing this misinformation.”
Not only then the American media cited U.S. “intelligence as saying Russia was preparing to use chemical weapons in Ukraine,” President Biden repeated these warnings, too.
Roads to hell are paved with good intentions, the NBC News report hinted: the intelligence officials who had come up with the warning simply wanted to discourage Russia from actually using these weapons.
That, even though they themselves rated the intelligence they used as “low confidence.”
Not only that. Saying that Putin was misled by his own advisers was a piece of pure fabrication, also. And neither did Putin turn to China for military aid.
This was not the first time American spooks decided to get onto the political bandwagon. This was the first time the balloon burst so early.