A tale of Eight Sprinters: Two got away, One Hero, One Villain and the Dubious Taste of Shame

War zones since the early 2000s have challenged the core principles of modern journalism and prompted a reexamination of the role of war journalism during violent conflict. In recent years, the esteemed values within journalism such as objectivity and detachment which aimed to create a balanced coverage of victims and aggressors alike, have been downgraded by many media commentators This episode briefly explores the history of conflict coverage by focusing on two key aspects; The use of propaganda in war journalism and a more recent concept called embedded journalism. Embedded journalism refers to news reporters being attached to military units during armed conflicts. From the media perspective, the privileged access offered by embedding, creates a standard of openness in journalism, helping to appraise the public of military action in foreign wars. There is also a strong willingness by the military to maintain an embedded program because of the potential for garnering public support. Nevertheless, it remains completely subservient to the operational objectives of the military and thus its scope is narrowed. This has led to accusations of one-sided reporting because it concentrates on state and military matters. Since its full scale introduction in the 2003 Iraq war, the program has been dogged by questions of impartiality. How can a journalist who lives, travels and relies on military protection be claim to be unbiased in their reporting? which ultimately calls into question the reporter’s objectivity. Warfare has a long history of requiring the backing of public support, and great effort is involved to shape public opinion and convince domestic populations to accept the actions of their governments in a given conflict. As such, the visual media’s unique power of influence also makes them more likely to deploy propaganda techniques during military conflicts. Equally, warring parties resort to even greater effort to influence, steer, and control the distribution of visual images and journalist reporting at an international level. For the mass media, war by its very nature is highly newsworthy. War journalism attracts large audiences and engages people, very deeply at an emotional level. The media will often present conflicts as a win-lose scenario in which an idealized, positive ‘self’ defeats the demonized, negative ‘other.’ War journalists are trained to construct news in a simplified narrative form, based on their existing belief systems. Often this is manifested as the evil “un-democratic” antagonist facing off against the virtuous, democratic protagonist. This classic media framing technique is used to exploit cultural and psychological values of news audiences. How can we evaluate whether the public is truly benefiting from war journalism through the practice of embedded reporting? Because during conflict coverage, there is always an imbalance of shared information between the state and its public, meaning new audiences lose the most.

In this episode we examine a unique type of reporting called investigative journalism, requiring unbridled courage, integrity and sacrifice from certain journalists to bring stories of major significance to public attention. In their role as watchdogs, investigative journalists play a crucial role in placing greater scrutiny on the abuses of power and influence. One of the most famous examples in recent memory includes “The Watergate Scandal” in 1972, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974. However in this episode, we focus on the crusading work of one such journalist, Gary Webb and his subsequent demise at the hands of the established elites of his own industry. He was an award winning investigative journalist best known for his 1996 series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News, entitled “Dark Alliance-The Story behind the Crack Explosion.” Webb’s expose revealed that the CIA helped to initiate America’s crack cocaine epidemic in the early to mid 1980s. This elaborate scheme involved drug traffickers linked to the Contras (a CIA-backed guerrilla army in Nicaragua) who were plotting an attempted coup of the socialist Sandinista government. The proceeds of this illicit operation were used to fund the contras, while the imported cocaine worth millions of dollars were destined for the most impoverished cities in America. His series sparked public outrage, not only about the American government’s role in drug trafficking, but also because low income black neighbourhoods, in the south-central area of Los Angeles were the prime targets. It made a mockery of the US government’s highly celebrated “war on drugs” policy at home and abroad. We examine the mainstream media’s initial disregard for the story, followed by the outright attack from the “Big Three” major dailies. Webb’s story was discredited with allegations of shoddy reporting and poor editorial practices at the Mercury News. But even more damaging were accusations that “Dark Alliance” was nothing more than a conspiracy theory and the work of an irrational fantasist. Webb’s series was also attacked for lighting the fuse on a widespread sentiment known as “Black Paranoia.” This referred to a federal conspiracy to undermine inner city Black-American neighbourhoods during the 1980s. Also of interest, is how the CIA manipulated its “productive relations” with the press, using its media assets to undermine “Dark Alliance.” We then outline the subsequent demise of Gary Webb, as a result of the shameful attack on his story and subsequent public humiliation. In the final section we explain how Webb’s character assassination was enacted by “weaponizing” the journalistic profession via the concept of legitimacy and autonomy. This raises troubling questions about its legitimacy as a professional platform of discourse and the authority of its “moral badge” of ethics and protocols, which stem from the depth of its obsequiousness and unremitting pursuit of power and status.

The Alchemist and His Apprentice -The Stagecraft of Mass Media Manipulation In this episode we focus on how the media is manipulated and controlled by governments, corporations and interest groups to further their respective causes. Media manipulation has been used since the early 20 Century in many war theatres by employing sophisticated techniques such as propaganda and perception management. In the modern context, propaganda is used to persuade the public of the merits of a particular course of action. For instance, in the case of questionable wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, PR firms manipulated the media using standard techniques such as spreading disinformation in order to shape public opinion. We focus on the use of media as a tool of propaganda in the aftermath of the events of 9/11 and the during the second gulf war in Iraq. To this end the media is an essential conduit of information which, when used correctly, represents one of the most powerful weapons the government possesses at its disposal. By communicating messages to the wider population, the media’s role is to imbue individuals with the patterns of behaviour to absorb them into the institutional structures of wider society. The emphasis on message control reflects the intertwining of journalism with the political order, creating an alliance between state-craft and stage-craft. Hence mass media clearly has a pervasive influence on contemporary society. We ask; Why is there is a lack of a critical depth in mainstream media? Or indeed why alternative views are rarely aired (unless there is a motive to ridicule them). Essentially because, media manipulation is related to wealth and power and the dominant elites use television networks and news journalism to maintain their hegemonic position in society. Finally we examine a manipulation technique, referred to by British author and researcher David Icke, as Problem – Reaction – Solution (PRS). Also known as order out of chaos it stems from the philosophical approach of Hegel's Dialectic consisting of an interchange of three stages of development. It involves going from Thesis to Antithesis reverting back again to Synthesis. We provide real life examples where this technique has been used throughout History, resulting in actions or legislation that would never have passed under normal circumstances, based on fear, chaos and disorder. Using this approach we draw parallels with the present Coronavirus, COVID-19 crisis, which appears to invoke the familiar blueprint of the PRS model.

This episode is PART 2 of a dual episode focusing on the covert element of American public policy, aimed at destabilizing foreign governments, toppling foreign leaders, and launching military regime change. I will focus on two unique cases of covert action, Iran (1953) and Chile (1973) which explore in greater detail the use of covert action as a US foreign-policy instrument. Both examples provide a wealth of information on the structure, perceived uses and geo-political implications of covert action. In both Iran and Chile, one can witness the inception of US covert activity at a small scale using propaganda and political operations, and then review their impact as covert action escalated into larger scale operations employing economic or military options, ultimately ending in violent coup d'etat. A brief background to the Iranian case is provided which helps to explain, why US covert action in Iran created ripple effects that when far beyond its immediate use as a policy tool, creating much larger repercussions for future US administrations. Operation AJAX was the code name for the CIA-organized military coup launched against the democratically elected government of Iran, led by Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. The covert operation was considered a success at the time by foreign policy experts in Washington, and later served as a blueprint and guide for future covert interventions. In Chile, the 1973 coup differed significantly from Iran, because the scenario developed over a longer time period and was precipitated by an aggressive policy of destabilization by the top echelon of US policy makers. Following the victory of left-leaning candidate Salvador Allende in the 1970 presidential election, the US began working against Allende, using diplomatic and economic sanctions and offering financial support to opposition candidates. Such pressures, combined with the inherent instability of Allende’s radical economic reforms, led to a collapse of the democratic state. On September 11 1973, General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the Allende government and began a 17-year dictatorship in the country that still haunts Chileans to this day. In both case scenarios I provide an analysis of the consequences of CIA covert action, the various policy considerations to be gleaned from each event, before arriving at concluding remarks. Overall, covert action is a high-risk proposition which carries an enormous level of uncertainly. It rarely produces positive results for the targeted country, when evaluated from a military or economic standpoint. And even when it leads to a small degree of success, there is always an element of failure involved, which leads to lasting repercussions. The current approach to regime change has evolved considerably from its origins in the Cold War due to modern information warfare. However, what remains clear is, the rationale remains unchanged, which is to ultimately, serve national interest and pursue foreign policy objectives at all cost.

Throughout its history the United States has used regime change, employing military and covert operations to overthrow or prop up governments as part of an integral tool of US foreign policy for over a hundred years. Beginning with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, the Spanish-American War in 1898, continuing through to the Cold War and into the present day, the United States has remained steadfast in its zeal to overthrow governments that stood in the way of its political and economic goals. No other nation in modern history has carried out regime change so often, and done so, in so many locations away from its own shores. Various US administrations have honed statecraft to depose foreign governments and America’s unique policy of regime-change can be classified into three main eras according to author Stephen Kinzer—The imperial era; The cold war era; And the invasion era. Although the invasion of Iraq is the most recent example of direct military force used by the United States, to exert its power and alter another country's leadership, it certainly is not the first. Iraq (2003) was the culmination of a 110-year period during which the United States overthrew fourteen governments, that drew the ire of America’s top politicians, all in the name of preserving US strategic and business interests. Iraq was arguably the most blatant form of American military intervention but was not isolated, because previously the United States attempted to change governments in other countries 72 times during the Cold War. US policy makers have used a variety of means to address perceived problems within the foreign policy arena to achieve strategic, economic and political goals. Regime change is a valuable instrument in the American foreign policy toolkit, because it eliminates core threats, supports friendly governments and promotes free trade regimes advantageous to the United States. One of the most contested areas of regime change missions, is the use of covert or secret operations as a policy tool, compared to more overt choices such as full scale military theatre. This two-part episode will focus on the covert element of American public policy, where the United States has played an active role in destabilizing foreign governments, deposing foreign leaders, and launching military regime change. In Part 1, I will begin with a brief primer on covert activity before examining the reasons why covert action has been used as a policy tool by the US government. I will then address the next issue; Whether covert action serves its purpose as a useful mechanism to achieve US foreign policy goals. The examples and analysis provided will offer an insight, into high level US government activity, and the manipulative statecraft employed by the most powerful economy and military force in the world, as part of its ongoing efforts to influence geo-political discourse and maintain its global hegemony.

President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address of 1961 was the first to express concern about the impact of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” which he noted was “new in American experience”. He alerted councils of governments, saying that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.’ As a result of Eisenhower’s speech, over the past few decades, the Military Industrial-Complex [MIC] has become a phrase used by researchers and political commentators, to describe a complex web of connections, pervading the state and industrial apparatus. This includes the military, the Pentagon, politicians, defence contractors, and large corporations that profit from, or contribute to war efforts. This episode begins by tracing the initial thread of thoughts which instigated Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961, starting with the powerful Defence Industrial Base. Subsequently the ideological origins of the MIC are considered by tracing it to the anti-war movement during the 1930s, later manifested as two theories the “Merchants Of Death” and the “War Economy” thesis. The development of the Military Industrial Complex is then charted as it fluctuated throughout the latter half of the 20th century; declining from the late 1980s and then rising at the beginning of the 2000s mainly because, the end of the Cold War saw profound changes in the international security environment. The episode continues by examining the growth of the MIC and also exploring various key components of the MIC. This includes the following areas; 1.) The influence of the mainstream corporate media. In particular, how in the modern era, of unbridled mergers and acquisitions, the power and influence of the new age of media, is strictly under the control, of a handful of conglomerated corporations, reflecting an oligarchic market structure. 2.) The “revolving door” referring to the back and forth exchange of top officials, between the government, the pentagon, and various companies which do business with both sectors. In particular, the movement of former government officials who join the defence industry as executives, lobbyists, or other positions raising issues of abuse of power. In addition there are highlighted examples of how the MIC was applied to the Iraq war in 2003. 3.) The influence of think tanks; 4. Big Tech companies such as Google and Facebook and how their market practices have exacerbated an already highly concentrated media industry. This analysis leads us to examine the implications, of the extreme consolidation of media power, as well as the crossover of Big Tech companies into areas of civilian surveillance as part of the vastly expanded and constantly changing Military Industrial Complex.

Throughout the course of history, military alliances have existed, to act either as a counter-balancing force or to repel a perceived threat. The origins of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stem from its members’ perceived need to balance the rising power of the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. It was initially created as a countervailing force to the Berlin Blockade and the threat of Communism aggression. After the end of Cold War hostilities in 1991, NATO needed to repurpose the Alliance, if it was to survive and stay relevant as a functioning organization. Initially, it expanded its responsibilities to peacekeeping and crisis management, until President Clinton proposed a Partnership for Peace (PfP), which laid the foundation for expanding the NATO alliance eastward, allowing NATO to readjust its scope for security, by pursuing an expansive concept of global, collective security. In the 21 century NATO was confronted by new global challenges and the Alliance adapted by transforming its military capability towards new military excursions. However in recent years the Alliance has been heavily criticized for being a Western foreign policy tool” in the guise of humanitarian expeditions, leading to controversy over NATO’s ability to deliver on its state-craft solutions. Consequently one area which has been affected by NATO’s military missions is the Russian Federation’s sphere of influence, leading to a fundamental reform of Russia’s relations with the western military alliance since the mid 2000s. In particular, NATO interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya have forced Russia to rethink its security strategy and modernize its military capabilities. In this episode my aim will be to explain how major crises since the early 2000s have been shaped by NATO-Russia relations. The central theme argues that differences in NATO and Russian geopolitical discourses towards crises in Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan have led to reciprocal disagreements resulting in negative relations with Russia. My objectives will be to: 1.) Outline and compare the concepts behind the relevant NATO and Russian geopolitical discourses in relation to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya 2.) To address the question; Why NATO intervened in the affairs of these three countries? 3.) Explain the consequences for their mutual relations and cooperation within the international arena. 4. How have the NATO military interventions affected relations with Russia after the Cold War? After examining the historical background of each of the three countries involved, I will examine the geopolitical discourses relevant to each crisis. In the final section, I will briefly review the short-term effectiveness of the two NATO bombing campaigns by reviewing the casualties and loss of life; whether the humanitarian goals such as (R2P) “responsibility to protect” were achieved. Also, whether the stated goals became de-prioritized, as unstated goals took greater precedence.

The Euromaidan protests which took place in Kiev between 2013-2014 focused international attention on Ukraine as a shining symbol of democratic values and reform, across Eastern Europe & Eurasia. Despite the country’s significant democratic gains in recent years, one of the trends which has emerged since Maidan 2014, has been a parallel rise in the activity of radical ultra-nationalist groups. While far-right groups have existed in Ukraine since the 1920s, they now represent a sophisticated and politically influential element of society. Indeed, the Ukraine is far from being a paragon of democratic stability within Eastern Europe, as often portrayed by Western media accounts. For the first two and half decades of Ukrainian independence, far-right groups were marginalized elements of the socio-political process. However, the political landscape within the Ukraine has changed dramatically in a short space of time, due to the upheaval created by the events of Euromaidan. The main focus of this episode will be an examination of the ultra-nationalist movement which threatens the future development of Ukraine, due to its anti-democratic values; xenophobic propaganda and the use of intimidation and violence against political opponents. In particular, ultra-nationalist groups pose a threat to various minority populations, undermining their ability to exercise basic freedoms of expression and assembly. But more importantly, ultra-nationalist radicalism undermines the inclusiveness of society, which is fundamental to political and economic stability. This episode examines the main representatives of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist scene since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In addition, I will consider the level of political influence wielded by far-right groups in Ukraine and then submit three key questions; What are the historical origins of nationalist identity in Ukraine? ; Why are the dividing lines between the Russian & Ukrainian worldviews so pronounced? ; What are the ideological origins of ultra-nationalism in Ukraine? Other areas to be examined are the broader influence of Fascism on Ukrainian nationalism, in particular the role of Ukrainian Nationalist organizations such as the UVO and OUN to bring “Ukrainian National Revolution” to fruition. This aimed to establish an independent Ukrainian state during the interwar period, to “liberate’ Ukraine from domination by the second Polish republic and the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union, but eventually collaborated with Nazi Germany as a means to alter the status quo of Ukraine’s geopolitical situation. In the final section, I examine the extent to which modern Ukrainian ultra-nationalism has inherited its identity by resurrecting the past; through the use of symbolism; its symbiotic relationship with para-military nationalism and also the glorification of Nazi collaborators.

Managing the damaged relations between Russia and the West have escalated new heights, due to the Ukraine invasion of February 24. The ongoing Ukraine conflict is invariably portrayed by Western powers and the political media establishment, as one of Russia being the sole aggressor. Deteriorating ties are also blamed on the authoritarian policies pursued by President Vladimir Putin. However, the West has played a significant role in eroding this relationship, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 by ignoring Russian policy concerns and attempting to take advantage of Russian weakness during that critical period. Recent action by western powers, aimed at targeting Russia through economic sanctions, have not only created major problems for itself, such as a looming energy crisis but have made any diplomatic solution, to the ongoing military tragedy in Ukraine increasingly unlikely. This episode lifts the lid on the origins of the current Ukraine conflict by first visiting the source of the problem, the end of the Cold War; But also provides a detailed context behind the escalation of hostilities between Russia and the US. This critical juncture during 1989-1990 marked, not only the transformation of a new international system, but also the genesis of the Ukraine war. An important aspect of US policy towards Russia, in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, was its tacit aim to contain the new Russia and ensure it could not successfully re-impose its influence across Eastern Europe. This was primarily carried out through the eastern expansion policy of both NATO and the EU, with its desired aim of edging closer towards legitimate spheres of Russian influence. Initially, Moscow tolerated this process by focusing its efforts on gaining political acceptance by the West and integrating into its economic institutions but this policy eventually faced rebuttal, due to the emergence of Vladimir Putin at the turn of the century. Ultimately the US—Russia relationship is defined by a fundamental dilemma of security interests. To expand on this point, I introduce the viewpoints of two eminent scholars on Russia studies and international relations, who both argue that most of the blame for the Ukraine conflict, lies with the US and its European allies, citing Washington’s policy of unilateralism, after the end of the Cold War and also its wholesale disregard of Russian national interests. I explain how the eastern expansion of NATO began, and the political rationale used to justify it, using Professor John Mearsheimer’s theory of “offensive realism.” Also how, the Ukraine crisis was eventually kindled, using Mearsheimer’s argument of the “West’s triple approach” namely, NATO enlargement, EU expansion and Democracy promotion. In the final section, I provide an assessment of the internal vulnerabilities and geo-political perspectives which shape the dynamics of great powers, thus helping to explain the current Ukraine conflict.

When analyzing the Ukraine Crisis which stems from early February 2014, and has now been transformed into a full scale military conflict, it’s important to understand the highly complex dynamics involved which have led to military confrontation between Russian and Ukrainian forces. These events have created a major flashpoint, reminiscent of cold war politics during the post war era. This nuanced situation in modern international relations is the result of interactions between various actors involved in this real life tragedy from NATO led Western powers, to state aggression between Ukraine & Russia, and also extending to various representatives of nationalist-separatism from the Lugansk and Donetsk Peoples Republics, both located in the historical Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine. Moreover, the Ukraine Crisis, which has been over-simplified by western media, as an ideological battle between democracy and autocracy or aggression and counter-aggression; is far from being a binary issue or indeed, the sole source of conflict between NATO and Russia. Clearly, the Ukraine crisis is now a global tragedy and humanitarian catastrophe, as evidenced by the thousands of people already killed; the mass displacement of refugees and emerging accounts of human outrage. So, how do we understand the armed conflict in Ukraine? and What are its implications for the country’s future as an independent nation? There are several competing narratives to explain the armed conflict in Ukraine and I will briefly mention three, to place the ongoing conflict in some form of context. In this episode, my aim is to establish a common denominator of events which hopefully all sides would agree upon regarding the underlying causes of the current crisis in Ukraine. The starting point, is to consider that Ukraine as a nation has only existed since 1919, as a socialist republic under the former USSR, but it has been plagued with conflicting internal divisions ever since. These come in the form of cultural, linguistic, regional and ethnic divisions which are partly responsible for the country’s struggling or failing democracy. I examine the major internal factors for this failure, including the absence of a binding and harmonious national ideology; the influence of Oligarchic elites; the issue of nationalism and also a fragmented political landscape. I discuss the main political events which led to the capitulation of power by President Victor Yanukovych in 2014, including the “Orange Revolution” of 2004 and The Maidan events in 2014. I also discuss the role of external actors such as the United States in actively influencing the outcome of the Maidan events. Also, the contentious issue of NATO’s Eastward Expansion towards Russia’s borders, as well as the role of the European Union (EU) and NATO. In the final section I examine the strategic implications of the Ukraine crisis by focusing on the wider geo-political context and key developments in international relations, such as