1. The unidentified armed men who took control of Crimea were local self-defence units Although the uniforms did not have insignia, they were easily identified as Russian army issue. The men also seemed suspiciously well trained. Putin argued that anyone could have bought Russian uniforms: "The post-Soviet space is full of such uniforms." Yet the military-grade weapons that the troops were carrying, from Kalashnikovs to Dragunov sniper rifles to bazookas, are not as easy to explain away. Also, Guardian reporters have seen unidentified troops taking over Crimean airbases driving in military vehicles with Russian plates, which the foreign ministry has admitted are moving around the peninsula.I suppose Alec Luhn does not know that: a) Russia has and been had their own soldiers in Crimea. b) That even with Russian troops there that does not mean that self-defense forces made up of locals and defectors are not also engaged. And given the friendly terms between Crimea and Russia, why wouldn't local groups not have access to Russian goods?
2. Western-backed forces carried out the coup Putin said that the downfall of former president Viktor Yanukovych's government had been backed by western countries and incited by people "sitting in America doing experiments, like on rats", adding: "I think that this was all well prepared. Of course there are military units and they are there to this day, they are well-prepared and in this the western instructors did well." While western donors have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups campaigning against Yanukovych's regime, there is no evidence that either the US or UK have trained opposition forces militarily. The so-called "self-defence units" which took part in the pro-European protests did not appear to have any military training, displaying instead some poor discipline and relying on improvised equipment such as motorcycle helmets and table legs.Two words: Victoria Nuland. And the amount SHE said was $5 billion. Next!
3. Protesters in Ukraine were killed by former opposition snipers The president said that the dozens of anti-Russian protesters killed by sniper bullets were victims of their own leaders. "There is the opinion that [snipers shot] on the orders of one of the opposition parties," he said, despite eyewitness accounts of police snipers shooting protesters. While Putin cited "freely available information" to back his claim, there is also video footage of snipers in police uniforms shooting at people.I have read similar rumors that there were plants in the protestors (or state agencies) that also did sniping. I actually don't even understand the point of this one. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on violence so if they have been authorized to shoot then they have been. But in regards to the "fog of war" I point the reader to the following:
As it turns out, political analyst, F. William Engdahl has done a bit of research on the group and gives a rundown in a recent article titled “The Rape of Ukraine; Phase Two Begins”. Here’s what he says: “The question unanswered until now is who deployed the snipers? (who shot into the crowd in Maidan Square) According to veteran US intelligence sources, the snipers came from an ultra-right-wing military organization known as Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO).And I'll leave you to judge for yourself.
4. Pro-Europe demonstrators shot and burned former ruling party employees Putin claimed that protesters had shot one employee of the former ruling party and set another on fire. In reality, protestors threw stones and Molotov cocktails at a Party of Regions office on 18 February, after which a fire broke out. Emergency services rescued several people but were not able to save one office worker who died in the blaze. There were no credible reports that anyone had been shotSo Putin was lying, but this guy then runs down the scenario but tries to discredit it by saying the reports were "not credible". Essentially this guy is saying that because he chooses to not believe the reports therefore Putin is a liar. No. For Putin to be lying (in this instance) he would have to know that the report was false and still present it as truth.
5. Yanukovych is the legitimate president of Ukraine When it came to the ousted Yanukovych government, Putin seemed to want to have his cake and eat it . On the one hand, the Russian president said he agreed with protesters that Ukraine's previous regimes were all "crooks" and admitted Yanukovych had no power and no political future. On the other, he still insisted Yanukovych remained the legitimate president.Does this guy know what a coup d' etat is? So yup. The Guardian UK thinks you're an idiot. Are you? [Update 3-5 9:26AM] Apparently someone at the Guardian decided to "fix" the headline to make it more professional. They dropped the "fibs" and replaced it with "untruths" (as is in the original html link). That does not change the fact that the information [sic] that was presented is any better with the new title.