Russian FSB prevents terrorist attack in Crimea prepared by Ukraine’s intelligence service

from TASS

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has said it prevented terrorist attacks in Crimea prepared by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s main intelligence directorate.

“In the small hours of August 8, 2016 commando units of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s groups of saboteurs made two penetration attempts. Both were prevented by FSB units and cooperating agencies. The penetration attempts were accompanied by heavy fire from the neighboring country’s territory and Ukrainian armored vehicles. The fire exchange left one Russian military serviceman dead,” the FSB said.

[read more here]

12 Responses

  1. I find it incredible that you are intensely skeptical of any “terror” event that occurs in the West, but as soon as Russia claims one, you re-print their FSB talking points verbatim without the slightest whiff of skepticism.

    Perhaps some Russians have been hitting up your donate button?

    • Now I’m on the Russia payroll as well? Let me see, The Donald, Wikileaks and the Intercept all bought off by Russia… and now me? ug. no. first of all, I just posted this as a point of interest story. I didn’t attempt to verify it or deny it. I just put it up here so that people could read it and go check it out for themselves. Second, this is not a “terror event”, it was a THWARTED attempt at STATE-BACKED terrorism coming from our neoliberal slimeballs in Ukraine. Do I think they are more than capable of adopting our policy of destabilization through terrorism in Crimea? You bet. Do I know it happened? No I have yet to look further into it.

      • Now I’m on the Russia payroll as well?

        If you’re not on the Russian payroll, you should be. Nobody should go unpaid for their work. Evidently, part of your “work” is full-time shilling for Russia, and specifically, Dear Leader Mr. Putin.

        I just posted this as a point of interest story. I didn’t attempt to verify it or deny it.

        So, essentially this is your MO: everything Western governments (or any government you dislike for whatever reason) say must be scrupulously scrutinized, double checked and verified, questioned, challenged, etc. But suddenly, when the Russians make a claim, a very political claim like this Crimea thing, your vigorous skepticism dissipates into blind, passive acceptive (indeed, re-printing verbatim) of the ruling authorities and their assertions. Never in a million years would you be caught posting something as “a point of interest story” without first picking it apart six ways to Sunday if it came from a “Western” government, but Russia (China and others) are treated entirely differently, entirely favorably. Says it all about your agenda really.

        Second, this is not a “terror event”, it was a THWARTED attempt at STATE-BACKED terrorism coming from our neoliberal slimeballs in Ukraine.

        By referring to Ukraine as “our neoliberal slimeballs,” you’ve kind of thrown all objectivism out the window before the cards have even been dealt on this one. Wherever your “investigation” into this one goes, it will surely lead to a guilty verdict for the “neoliberal slimeballs” as you’ve pegged them. That’s the very definition of confirmation bias.

        Do I think they are more than capable of adopting our policy of destabilization through terrorism in Crimea? You bet.

        And is Putin more than capable of adopting a policy of destabilization through terrorism? If we’ve learned anything from Putin’s Machiavellian chess-playing vis-a-vis Chechnya in 1999 (after “neoliberal slimeball” Yeltsin hand-selected his loyal servant Putin for the replacement job), the answer is emphatically yes. The Russians do false flags too, not just the evil Yankees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sx2YmSXDy8

        Of course, that is one false flag you’ll jump through hoops to dismiss I’m sure, or blame on someone else, despite all the Russian truthers (including two law makers and a couple journalists) ending up dead (murdered) for prying a little too deep into the devilish details. Saint Putin doesn’t do those sorts of things, being an ex-KGB chief and all.

        Do I know it happened? No I have yet to look further into it.

        And we all know that’s not likely to happen, don’t we? You only embark on “investigation” to find dirt on governments you already dislike, not ones you have an open love affair with.

        • any credibility you try to achieve is lost when you talk about “objectivism” in Ukraine. We all know what happened there and describing the neo-Nazis and the color revolution we ran there for what they are, for what it was, is not “confirmation bias”, it’s just fact.

          • And your response is to scoff at the very concept of objectivism. Again, you are just proving that you’re not a journalist, but a propagandist for certain regimes, particularly Putin’s Russia.

            Evidently, you think you have some kind of unquestionable “verdict” on Ukraine. We know that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians decided to overturn their government.

            Backing of the opposition by the US is no different than Russian backing of the pro-Russian parties, led by Yanukovich. You are against the former but not the latter. A huge number of Ukrainians made the decision that Yanukovich was so corrupt they were willing to die in the streets to depose him. That’s their decision, and we have to live with it. You can voice all the criticisms you want of the “new” government, and there are certainly legitimate criticisms to be made. But insofar as you had no criticism of Yanukovich and basically advocate for a Russian-backed regime-change to re-install him, you’ve identified yourself not as an honest broker in this dispute in a country that isn’t yours but a propagandist for one side.

            As for “neo-Nazis” in Ukraine, that’s the standard Russian propaganda line to refer to the Ukrainian nationalists who revere Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist leader who fought BOTH the Soviets and Germans who occupied Ukraine during WW2. By no means were “neo-Nazis” the whole of the protest movement, but rather a very small number within the nationalist faction. Unless you want to claim there were hundreds of thousands of “neo-Nazis” running around.

            Furthermore, if “neo-Nazis” irk you, then what’s your position on Stalinists? The leadership of the East Ukraine rebel “republics” who Putin supports are open Stalinists, worshippers of the genocidal maniac Stalin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11939912/Cult-of-Stalin-sweeps-back-into-Ukraines-Donetsk-rebel-republic.html

            This fact does not seem to bother you. In fact, you support these Stalinists vigorously because you are a propagandist for Russia and any forces allied to Russia. That much is abundantly clear.

            • you must really like the McCarthism reboot going on in the Democratic Party these days.

            • and what do you support — a western-orchestrated coup against an elected government? but no, you’re not a propagandist, are you?

              • you should read the comments on his website. He justifies the CIA/USA-backed coup in Ukraine by saying Gaddafi staged a coup back in ’67 in Libya, so therefore it’s OK for the CIA to do it in Ukraine. The guy just rails on and on about evil Putin and the “Stalinists” in Donbass. I’m sure he also backs what happened in Thailand and the military coup in Egypt that got rid of Morsi and probably would like to have seen success in Turkey of the last Gulenist coup over there.

                • Wrong. I didn’t “justify” anything. The Gaddafi example is proof that you “anti-coup” pundits are not anti-coup; you are only anti-coup when people you don’t like come to power, and pro-coup when people you like come to power. Bashar al-Assad’s father came to power in a coup in 1970 and ruled the country for 30 years without interruption, then handed the power to his son. I don’t hear you complaining about that. The world is full of coups and counter-coups… legitimacy does not depend on “voting”. There are NO “legitimate” governments – it doesn’t exist. Governments exist through power, but they aren’t “legitimate”. My example proves that simpletons in alt-media have NO consistency on “coups” and interventions.

                  Second, what happened in Ukraine was much more complicated than a “CIA coup”. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians poured into the Maidan square to remove the government. The CIA cannot possibly orchestrate all of that on a whim. There was absolutely a genuine grassroots opposition, the US just did what they always do, and that’s steer it in a direction they like. No different than what Putin does in all the countries surrounding Russia. In fact, Putin built his career on a regime-change operation in Chechnya, predicated on a false flag, to remove the separatist-leaning government of Aslan Maskadov and install his fiercely loyal puppet Ramzan Kadyrov. Putin is in the regime-change business too, and so are you, as you have made it clear you back a Russian invasion/coup in Ukraine today, to replace those now in power.

                  You want to dumb down the whole discussion with these vague generalizations. Clearly Ukrainians were upset with their government. That they looked to America for support is really no different than Assad looking to Russia for support. It happens on both ends of all conflicts/disputes/revolutions/wars. We can criticize their myopia in looking to a bad actor like the US for help, but from their vantage point Russia is a greater evil and bigger threat than the US. It isn’t overall, but from the perspective of Ukrainians, Russia is their main enemy. You think Castro in Cuba when he ousted Batista wasn’t getting money from the Soviet Union?

                  You are simply an intensely biased pundit who wants to portray the whole world as a cartoonish black and white good vs. evil battle, and you get to decide the teams.

                • i took a look at the guy’s twitter feed & that was enough for me; although i don’t trust or support putin (or any politician or head-of-state), the difference between putin’s actions & that of the west are painfully obvious when it comes to ukraine & syria, etc. mr. martinez evidently has no problem supporting regime-change operations of the west while demonizing putin (same as the msm) — regardless of what it means for democracy.

                • I’m beginning to get suspicious of all news outlets, even including this one to some degree. I almost wonder if all true journalists are already dead.

  2. Does Brandon Martinez get paid per word or per post? Is he, perhaps a Cuban exile, or did he too celebrate Fidel’s 90th? Is Brandon fidlerten? Or just another troll?
    This guy is so “objective” he ought to sent a CV to the Times today (See Scott’s latest post). He’s got the “Right Stuff” …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: