Once upon a time, if one watched the different news channels, the basic facts more-or-less agreed, it was the reporters' opinions about those facts that differed. The BBC, ordered by the British government to report a great victory at Dunkirk lest the British public demand surrender, reported a defeat followed by a miracle: most of the BEF were evacuated when capture or massacre seemed certain. I fear the German version also reported that the Wehrmacht defeated the British, but did not wax quite as euphoric about the evacuation, but that version has been lost to the history readily available to riff-raff such as myself, though perhaps a few historians have access to a few, preserved copies.
Today, the Russian press report that the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is going according to plan. The Russian care not to target civilians mean that progress is necessarily very slow but steady, and the current regime, which is led by the CIA, includes many Nazis, wants to join NATO and host NATO nukes and ABMs, and is murdering all the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, will eventually (not sure when) be replaced by a neutral government that will guarantee the rights of all the citizens of the Ukraine and will be strictly neutral, and never a member of NATO.
The rest of the press report that the evil and stupid Putin attacked the Ukraine expecting a victory in a week or less, but the Russian army, undermined by massive corruption, are not a match for the Ukrainian patriots and have lost many, many soldiers, tanks, and aeroplanes and are almost utterly destroyed, but still Putin presses on. The Russian economy has been completely destroyed by sanctions, they can no longer produce anything. Russians are going hungry, and without electricity or heat. It is not clear how much longer the evil and stupid Putin will press on with this senseless, illegal invasion of a free country where every law abiding citizen has full rights, unlike the autocracy that is Russia where no one except Putin has any rights.
Before, the Western press would have said, 'Zelensky/Biden good, Putin evil,' while the Russian press would have said, 'Putin good, Zelensky/Biden evil,' but would have more-or-less agreed on who was winning. Not any more. A hospital bombed? Both agree a hospital was bombed, but...
The Western press assure us the maternity and paediatric hospital was full of expectant and recently delivered mothers, and also newborn and ill children, and the Russian bombing completely destroyed it and injured 17 of those inside.
The Russian press are equally insistent that some Azov Nazis insisted all the women and children leave the hospital, then set it up as a centre for the Azov Battalion to fight the Russian liberators, so Russia, knowing this, bombed the hospital building (no longer a working hospital), but the Azov Battalion had few, if any casualties.
The Western press assures us that the Russian lie that the Azov Battalion are neo-Nazis, they are strictly peaceful, pro-democracy Ukrainians fighting to preserve the freedom and democracy of the Ukraine.
The Russian press has long-distance photographs and videos of the Azov Battalion wearing swastikas and Wolfsangels, both Nazi symbols, so the Russian press do not claim that these are neo-Nazis, there's nothing neo about them.
Did the Russian press doctor the photographs to insert the swastikas and Wolfsangels? Or maybe the Azov are foreign, Hindu volunteers who want to help the native Ukrainians defend their country against Russian invasion, and are just wearing some symbols of their religion? Given the contradictory videos and interviews, no way to tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment