The past few hectic days have kept me away from the site, but, I’ve been following along with current events as much as possible. And am now trying to find reports reflective of what appears to be happening. Earlier one covering the new and extreme McCarthyism and this one because Ukraine’s counter offensive ran out of steam long ago. There’s coup talk. And more
NBC News quietly released the most explosive anti-Ukraine story on Friday. Quoting sources, the article said that U.S. and European officials have broached the uncomfortable topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, including “very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.”
It was an astonishing piece of war reporting.
Yes, it is- see below a few select paragraphs
Media coverage during the over 20-month war between Russia and Ukraine has primarily been one way: Ukraine was making significant gains with Western help, and Russia was losing miserably. The total victory of evicting Russians from every square inch of Ukraine was challenging but not improbable, so it remained the goal. The West would, therefore, continue to supply weapons and aid for the “as long as it takes” conflict. And any talk about peace was premature and insulting to Kyiv – because only Ukraine should and could consider those factors.
The truth has been that such biased pro-Ukrainian coverage has insulted readers. Anyone following the war closely knew Kyiv depended entirely on Washington and the Western capitals, including for military and diplomatic strategies.
A few days before the NBC story, there was another by Simon Shuster of Time magazine, reporting from Kyiv. Shuster had been granted intimate and exclusive access to President Zelensky’s top advisers as the reporter who had written the article on the Time Man of the Year 2022 Award, which Zelensky won. Shuster reported that by the admission of Zelensky’s top advisers, the war is currently unwinnable for Ukraine. It was another sensational revelation.
The Time story coincided with two other pieces in the British press. The Economist reported that Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, General Valery Zaluzhny, believed the war was a stalemate. Unlike in the United States, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief is not its president but the highest-ranked officer in its armed forces. For someone in his position to reveal that Ukraine wasn’t making progress in its counteroffensive – when Jake Sullivan, America’s National Security Adviser, explicitly said in August that the conflict was not a stalemate – was extraordinary. The Economist went a step further, carrying a full companion essay by the General detailing the need for advanced weaponry. Why the secretive Ukrainians would publicly reveal their military readiness (or lack thereof) was a head-scratcher.
And on Saturday, the paper of record, the New York Times, carried a story where President Zelensky’s office rebuked the General’s assessment that the fighting was a stalemate, arguing, rather obviously, that such a declaration was helpful to the Russians. Under the hood, the piece brought to light, for the first time, divisions in the top leadership of the Ukraine command.
The crack in the loyalty became even more evident when Zelensky, the previous day, fired one of the General’s deputies, the head of special operations forces. Neither the General nor the fired deputy knew the dismissal was imminent. In an interview with the Times, Solomiya Bobrovska, who serves on the Parliament’s defense and intelligence committee (and sits in the opposition), said: “The firing looks like political interference into the armed forces and its combat actions.
All four article in one place- Feel free to read them if you haven’t. Many of the subjects have been covered here- The lack of Ukraine fighting forces- The subservience to the west. And yes, the absolute insulting media coverage-