A Ukrainian presidential advisor asserted to CNN (5/30/23): “If there are timely deliveries of large quantities of the necessary consumable components…then of course the war can mathematically be over this year…. It will end undoubtedly on the borders of Ukraine as they were in 1991.”
It has been clear for some time that US corporate news media have explicitly taken a side on the Ukraine War. This role includes suppressing relevant history of the lead-up to the war (FAIR.org, 3/4/22), attacking people who bring up that history as “conspiracy theorists” (FAIR.org, 5/18/22), accepting official government pronouncements at face value (FAIR.org, 12/2/22) and promoting an overly rosy picture of the conflict in order to boost morale.
For most of the war, most of the US coverage has been as pro-Ukrainian as Ukraine’s own media, now consolidated under the Zelenskyy government (FAIR.org, 5/9/23). Dire predictions sporadically appeared, but were drowned out by drumbeat coverage portraying a Ukrainian army on the cusp of victory, and the Russian army as incompetent and on the verge of collapse.
Triumphalist rhetoric soared in early 2023, as optimistic talk of a game-changing “spring offensive” dominated Ukraine coverage. Apparently delayed, the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in June. While even US officials did not believe that it would amount to much, US media papered over these doubts in the runup to the campaign.
Over the last three months, it has become clear that the Ukrainian military operation will not be the game-changer it was sold as; namely, it will not significantly roll back the Russian occupation and obviate the need for a negotiated settlement. Only after this became undeniable did media report on the true costs of war to the Ukrainian people.
Overwhelming optimism
A former top US general assured NPR (5/12/23) that “Ukraine’s long-anticipated counteroffensive against Russia will ultimately succeed.”
In the runup to the counteroffensive, US media were full of excited conversation about how it would reshape the nature of the conflict. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe (4/21/23) he was “confident Ukraine will be successful.” Sen. Lindsey Graham assured Politico (5/30/23), “In the coming days, you’re going to see a pretty impressive display of power by the Ukrainians.” Asked for his predictions about Ukraine’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told NPR (5/12/23), “I actually expect…they will be quite successful.”
Former CIA Director David Patraeus, author of the overhyped “surge” strategy in Iraq, told CNN (5/23/23):
I personally think that this is going to be really quite successful…. And [the Russians] are going to have to withdraw under pressure of this Ukrainian offensive, the most difficult possible tactical maneuver, and I don’t think they’re going to do well at that.
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius (4/15/23) acknowledged that “hope is not a strategy,” but still insisted that “Ukraine’s will to win—its determination to expel Russian invaders from its territory at whatever cost—might be the X-factor in the decisive season of conflict ahead.”
The New York Times (6/2/23) ran a story praising recruits who signed up for the Ukrainian pushback, even though it “promises to be deadly.” Times columnist Paul Krugman (6/5/23) declared we were witnessing “the moral equivalent of D-Day.” CNN (5/30/23) reported that Ukrainians were “unfazed” as they “gear up for a counteroffensive.”
Cable news was replete with buzz about how the counteroffensive, couched with modifiers like “long-awaited” or “highly anticipated,” could turn the tide in the war. Nightly news shows (e.g., NBC, 6/15/23, 6/16/23) presented audiences with optimistic statements from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other figures talking about the imminent success.
Downplaying reality
The Washington Post (4/10/23) noted that pessimistic leaked assessments were “a marked departure from the Biden administration’s public statements about the vitality of Ukraine’s military.”
Despite the soaring rhetoric presented to audiences, Western officials understood that the counteroffensive was all but doomed to fail. This had been known long before the above comments were reported, but media failed to include that fact as prominently as the predictions for success.
On April 10, as part of the Discord leaks story, the Washington Post (4/10/23) reported that top secret documents showed that Ukraine’s drive would fall “well short” of its objectives, due to equipment, ammunition and conscription problems. The document predicted “sustainment shortfalls” and only “modest territorial gains.”
The Post additionally cited anonymous officials who claimed that the documents’ conclusions were corroborated by a classified National Intelligence Council assessment, shown only to a select few in Congress. The Post spoke to a Ukrainian official who “did not dispute the revelations,” and acknowledged that it was “partially true.”
While the Post has yet to publish the documents in full, the leaks and the other sources clearly painted a picture of a potentially disastrous counteroffensive. Fear was so palpable that the Biden administration privately worried about how he could keep up support for the war when the widely hyped offensive sputtered. In the midst of this, Blinken continued to dismiss the idea of a ceasefire, opting instead to pursue further escalating the conflict.
Despite the importance of these facts, they were hardly reported on by the rest of corporate media, and dropped from subsequent war coverage. When the Post (6/14/23) published a long article citing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s cautious optimism about the campaign, it neglected to mention its earlier reporting about the government’s privately gloomier assessments. The documents only started appearing again in the press after thousands were dead, and the campaign’s failure undeniable.
In an honest press, excited comments from politicians and commentators would be published alongside reports about how even our highest-level officials did not believe that the counteroffensive would amount to much. Instead, anticipation was allowed to build while doubts were set to the side.
Too ‘casualty-averse’?
After noting estimates that 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died and as many as 120,000 wounded, the New York Times (8/18/23) reported that “American officials say they fear that Ukraine has become casualty averse.”
By July, Ukrainian casualties were mounting, and it became clearer and clearer that the counteroffensive would fail to recapture significant amounts of Ukrainian territory. Reporting grew more realistic, and we were given insights into conditions on the ground in Ukraine, as well as what was in the minds of US officials.
According to the Washington Post (8/17/23), US and Ukrainian militaries had conducted war games and had anticipated that an advance would be accompanied by heavy losses. But when the real-world fatalities mounted, the Post reported, “Ukraine chose to stem the losses on the battlefield.”
This caused a rift between the Ukrainians and their Western backers, who were frustrated at Ukrainians’ desire to keep their people alive. A mid-July New York Times article (7/14/23) reported that US officials were privately frustrated that Ukraine had become too afraid of dying to fight effectively. The officials worried that Ukrainian commanders “fear[ed] casualties among their ranks,” and had “reverted to old habits” rather than “pressing harder.” A later Times article (8/18/23) repeated Washington’s worries that Ukrainians were too “casualty-averse.”
Acknowledging failure
Wall Street Journal (7/23/23): “US Defense Department analysts knew early this year that Ukraine’s front-line troops would struggle against Russian air attacks.”
After it became undeniable that Ukraine’s military action was going nowhere, a Wall Street Journal report (7/23/23) raised some of the doubts that had been invisible in the press on the offensive’s eve. The report’s opening lines say it all:
When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces.
The Journal acknowledged that Western officials simply “hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.”
One Post column (7/26/23) asked, “Was Gen. Mark Milley Right Last Year About the War in Ukraine?” Columnist Jason Willick acknowledged that “Milley’s skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to achieve total victory appears to have been widespread within the Biden administration before the counteroffensive began.”
And when one official told Politico (8/18/23), “Milley had a point,” acknowledging the former military head’s November suggestion for negotiations. The quote was so telling that Politico made it the headline of the article.
Even Rep. Andy Harris (D-Md.), co-chair of the congressional Ukraine Caucus, publicly questioned whether or not the war was “winnable” (Politico, 8/17/23). Speaking on the counteroffensive’s status, he said, “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.”
The Washington Post (8/17/23) blamed the failure of “a counteroffensive that saw tens of billions of dollars of Western weapons and military equipment” on Ukraine’s failure to accept “major casualties” as “the cost of piercing through Russia’s main defensive line.”
Newsweek (8/16/23) reported on a Ukrainian leadership divided over how to handle the “underwhelming” counteroffensive. The Washington Post (8/17/23) reported that the US intelligence community assessed that the offensive would fail to fulfill its key objective of severing the land bridge between Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and Crimea.
As the triumphalism ebbed, outlets began reporting on scenes that were almost certainly common before the spring push but had gone unpublished. One piece from the Post (8/10/23) outlined a “darken[ed] mood in Ukraine,” in which the nation was “worn out.” The piece acknowledged that “Ukrainian officials and their Western partners hyped up a coming counteroffensive,” but there was “little visible progress.”
The Wall Street Journal (8/1/23) published a devastating piece about the massive number of amputees returning home from the mine-laden battlefield. They reported that between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians had lost one or more limbs as a result of the war—numbers that are comparable to those seen during World War I.
Rather than dwelling on the stalled campaign, the New York Times and other outlets focused on the drone war against Russia, even while acknowledging that the remote strikes were largely an exercise in public relations. The Times (8/25/23) declared that the strikes had “little significant damage to Russia’s overall military might” and were primarily “a message for [Ukraine’s] own people,” citing US officials who noted that they “intended to demonstrate to the Ukrainian public that Kyiv can still strike back.” Looking at the quantity of Times coverage (8/30/23, 8/30/23, 8/23/23, 8/22/23, 8/22/23, 8/21/23, 8/18/23), the drone strikes were apparently aimed at an increasingly war-weary US public as well.
War as desirable outcome
The Army War College’s John Deni (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/21) urged the US to take “a hard-line stance in diplomatic discussions,” because “if Mr. Putin’s forces invade, Russia is likely to suffer long-term, serious and even debilitating strategic costs.”
The fact that US officials pushed for a Ukrainian counteroffensive that all but expected would fail raises an important question: Why would they do this? Sending thousands of young people to be maimed and killed does nothing to advance Ukrainian territorial integrity, and actively hinders the war effort.
The answer has been clear since before the war. Despite the high-minded rhetoric about support for democracy, this has never been the goal of pushing for war in Ukraine. Though it often goes unacknowledged in the US press, policymakers saw a war in Ukraine as a desirable outcome. One 2019 study from the RAND Corporation—a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon—suggested that an effective way to overextend and unbalance Russia would be to increase military support for Ukraine, arguing that this could lead to a Russian invasion.
In December 2021, as Russian President Vladimir Putin began to mass troops at Ukraine’s border while demanding negotiations, John Deni of the Atlantic Council published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine,” which laid out the US logic explicitly: Provoking a war would allow the US to impose sanctions and fight a proxy war that would grind Russia down. Additionally, the anti-Russian sentiment that resulted from a war would strengthen NATO’s resolve.
All of this came to pass as Washington’s stance of non-negotiation successfully provoked a Russian invasion. Even as Ukraine and Russia sat at the negotiation table early in the war, the US made it clear that it wanted the war to continue and escalate. The US’s objective was, in the words of Raytheon boardmember–turned–Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “to see Russia weakened.” Despite stated commitments to Ukrainian democracy, US policies have instead severely damaged it.
NATO’s ‘strategic windfall’
David Ignatius (Washington Post, 7/18/23) called the Ukraine War “a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians)…. This has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
In the wake of the stalled counteroffensive, the US interest in sacrificing Ukraine to bleed Russia was put on display again. In July, the Post‘s Ignatius declared that the West shouldn’t be so “gloomy” about Ukraine, since the war had been a “strategic windfall” for NATO and its allies. Echoing two of Deni’s objectives, Ignatius asserted that “the West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked,” and “NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland.”
In the starkest demonstration of the lack of concern for Ukraine or its people, he also wrote that these strategic successes came “at relatively low cost,” adding, in a parenthetical aside, “(other than for the Ukrainians).”
Ignatius is far from alone. Hawkish Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) explained why US funding for the proxy war was “about the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done”: “We’re losing no lives in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians, they’re fighting heroically against Russia.”
The consensus among policymakers in Washington is to push for endless conflict, no matter how many Ukrainians die in the process. As long as Russia loses men and material, the effect on Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukrainian victory was never the goal.
‘Fears of peace talks’
The Hill (9/5/23) publishes warnings that “creeping negativity among the US public” will “increase pressure for Ukrainians to negotiate with Russia.”
Polls show that support for increased US involvement in Ukraine is rapidly declining. The recent Republican presidential debate demonstrated clear fractures within the right wing of the US power structure. Politico (8/18/23) reported that some US officials are regretting potential lost opportunities for negotiations. Unfortunately, this minority dissent has yet to affect the dominant consensus.
The failure of the counteroffensive has not caused Washington to rethink its strategy of attempting to bleed Russia. The flow of US military hardware to Ukraine is likely to continue so long as this remains the goal. The Hill (9/5/23) gave the game away about NATO’s commitment to escalation with a piece titled “Fears of Peace Talks With Putin Rise Amid US Squabbling.”
But even within the Biden administration, the Pentagon appears to be at odds with the State Department and National Security Council over the Ukraine conflict. Contrary to what may be expected, the civilian officials like Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are taking a harder line on perpetuating this conflict than the professional soldiers in the Pentagon. The media’s sharp change of tone may both signify and fuel the doubts gaining traction within the US political class.
Taking a side between two bullies is a cowards move.
Russia wanted peace. There was a tentative peace-deal worked out in April 2022. But then we sent Boris Johnson to tell Zelensky, “No. Putin’s a war criminal. If you stop fighting we won’t back you.”
The only bully is US.
Were you that fly on the wall ?? Cut the BS, as you have no idea what (if anything) occurred behind closed doors. Also lets not forget, while Russia “Gave Away” Crimea over 60 years ago, they invaded the UN recognized Ukrainian region of Crimea and quickly annexed it back to the Russian Federation in 2014.
They didn’t invade Crimea. They had a naval base there and if Ukrazi Land became a part of NATO, Russia would lose its only warm-water access to the Black Sea. By the way, the Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia. A subsequent Gallup Poll cited in Forbes also showed the residents happinesss with the situation.
I don’t know if links are allowed here. You could easily Google these texts:
Neocon Fiona Hill in “Foreign Affairs” magazine, September/October 2022:
“According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The pro-Ukrainian website, “Ukrainska Pravda”:
“According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages. The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.
Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to ‘press him’.”
Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett:
NATO “. . decided that it is necessary to continue to smash Putin, and not to negotiate… They broke off the negotiations, and then it seemed to me that they were wrong.”
If you believe the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSDNC, Fox Noise, you may be a victim of, “Manufacturing Consent.”
“Russia wanted peace” (yea, right. About as much as China’s Xi does)
“They didn’t invade Crimea” Wow, get educated here – With Facts. Russia and Ukraine had an agreement whereby they would share the military port at Sevastopol, where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet had been stationed. The pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych upon assuming office in 2010 extended the lease for Russian use of the port until 2042. However, Yanukovych fled Ukraine by late February 2014 amid large-scale protests, called Euromaidan. The protests were started and continued by his refusal to sign an agreement for closer ties with the European Union (aka ‘The evil West’).
It was at that point the very serious problems began in Crimea. Within days strange bands of armed gunmen, called “ Little Green Men “ began seizing government buildings in Crimea. They obviously looked like and indeed were regular Russian military forces (absent their Russian military patches, etc) but – according to Putin – they were local members of so called “self-defense groups.”
Then, back in March 2014 with virtually zero notice, Crimean’s held a one off referendum, which was boycotted by the opposition. Those who did vote – and there were no international observers to verify that result.- overwhelmingly voted for their region to become a part of Russia. Bottom line; the United Nations and most of the world – to this very day – views that Crimean secession vote as illegitimate. Days after the so called referendum Putin signed accession treaty making Crimea part of the Russian Federation once again. Nuff said.
Reply @Bradley Grower / September,16, 2023 at 12:17 am:
Reply @Bradley Grower / September,16, 2023 at 12:17 am:
REPLY @BRADLEY GROWER / September,16, 2023 at 12:17 am:
“‘Russia wanted peace’ (yea, right. About as much as China’s Xi does)”
You’re a full blown neocon. Do you still believe water-fluoridation is a commie plot? By the way, Iraq did NOT have (besides the gas we gave them) WMD; the Russians were NOT paying bounties to the Taliban for American scalps; Havana Syndrome is NOT a Russian secret weapon; Hunter’s laptop is NOT Russian disinformation.
China, like Russia, just wants to trade. WE want to be Number One. And we’ll shed blood (Ukrainian at the moment) to expand our empire. Since 2001, we’ve bombed/invaded seven countries. How many countries have Xi and Putin invaded? Who has killed more innocent people? Putin, Xi, – or G W Bush and Obama?
“Russia and Ukraine had an agreement whereby they would share the military port at Sevastopol” . . “The protests were started and continued by his refusal to sign an agreement for closer ties with the European Union (aka ‘The evil West’).”
Russia, Ukraine, Germany, France also had an agreement called the Minsk Accords. The Ukrazis were supposed to stop shelling the Donbas and give the ethnic Russians some autonomy. But the Ukrazis ignored the deal, and as corroborated by Aleksandr Lukashenko, François Hollande and Angela Merkel, the West/Ukraine had no intention of following the Minsk agreements.Yanukovych was looking out for his people. He was ready to sign a deal with the EU but knew it would be political suicide after reading the fine print: Ukraine would have to cut its trade/economic ties with Russia. They’d have to accept harsh austerity programs like increasing the retirement age and freezing pensions and wages. There’d be no more subsidies for pensioners’ heating costs (neoliberal austerity). Yes, Yanukovych fled because he was in danger from the Nazis that we conspired with to overthrow him in the 2014 Maidan coup d’etat.
“Within days strange bands of armed gunmen, called ‘Little Green Men’ began seizing government buildings in Crimea” . . “the United Nations and most of the world – to this very day – views that Crimean secession vote as illegitimate”
The Russians didn’t have to seize anything. Crimea is 82% Russian. The people are thrilled (as the Gallup Poll showed) to be part of Russia – AGAIN. C’mon, don’t you believe in “The will of the people?”
Here is an actual phony (non)referendum: “Kosovo formally declared independence.”
“Nuff said”
Many words, no veracity.
WHAT ?? Water-fluoridation isn’t a commie plot ?? Alright, take another puff, then hold. Careful of the people here who believe their own BS like this guy Bill Trumpster.
no they didnt. Youre just spewing russian/kremlin nonsense. None of what you say is remotely true and its all been thoroughly debunked. Shut up Ivan.
“However, Yanukovych fled Ukraine by late February 2014 amid large-scale protests, called Euromaidan. The protests were started and continued by his refusal to sign an agreement for closer ties with the European Union (aka ‘The evil West’).
It was at that point the very serious problems began in Crimea.”
LOL “large scale protests” and all completely peaceful right? None of the violence was committed by Right Sektor thugs likely funded and armed by the USA with John McCain and Vicky “Fuck the EU” Nuland speaking to the crowd and handing out cookies. And the snipers? All shooting came from “protestor” controlled buildings. What you’re really describing here was an unconstitutional violent coup planned, aided and abetted by the USA which was followed by a period of de-Russification (i.e. racist pogroms, the attempt to eliminate the use of the Russian language, the re-naming of streets and buildings to honor Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, the tearing down of Soviet era statues to be replaced with the Nazi collaborator Ukrainian leader, etc.)
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/26/robert-parry-the-mess-that-nuland-made/
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/12/08/robert-parry-whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/
Educate yourself Bradley before spewing racist, Russophobic lies and State Department talking points.
Wow Bill Paci is one angry dude. Easy on the cut and paste too and separate set of facts. The level of dumbassery coming across my reading of his comments is truly staggering.
@Ameen Ahmed, September 16, 2023 at 8:04 pm”
You, too, can “cut and paste” facts instead of spewing the State Department talking points prepared by their stenographers in the MSM.
This war started in 2014. There was a tentative peace-deal worked out in April 2022. Everything I wrote in my “September 15, 2023 at 9:16 pm” comment is true. We don’t like peace between Russia and Ukrazi Land, it’s not good for (the weapons) business so we sent BoJo to tell Zelensky to keep fighting.
What is it with you victims of Consent Manufacturing? You still believe the Russians installed Trump and Hillary missed her coronation?
@Gunjan Banerji, September 16, 2023 at 5:34 pm:
I’m a “Trumpster”? I’m not even a Republican. In my state, PA, I can’t register as an Independent and vote in a primary. So I’m a Democrat since the time of Harry A-Bomb Truman.
I’m just not a gullible partisan.
It appears that you only read and watch corporate propaganda. Here is a short video to cleanse your mind of that junk about Crimea.
“Russia” wasn’t “Russia” 60 years ago. There is a long and complicated history behind the former USSR and its constituent country members. Do you know what “Ukraine” translates to?
As far as the peace agreement, it’s widely documented. Nobody here had to have been a “fly on the wall” to know about it. In fact Bill didn’t even mention the two Minsk agreements or Russia’s security arrangement proposals brought to the UN (meaning US and its UK/France/Germany lapdogs) in 2021 which was completely rebuffed because of the demand that Crimea must be returned to the Banderite Russophobic leadership of Ukraine, with the goal that Russia would be kicked out of its only warm water naval port so that NATO (meaning Uncle Scam) could move in and further encircle Russia in spite of numerous previous promises.
Further, perhaps you’re not aware of the referendum in which upwards of 85% of Crimeans voted and of those ~90% voted to join the RF. Do you not care what the actual people want?
“Bleeding” Russia with the blood of Ukraine
Bryce Greene has gathered proof of a complete lack of journalistic standards in our country. A steady diet of “hope” in the media won’t win this war. We are now in another quagmire having already lost tens of billions of dollars and the almost unbearable loss of so many lives.
Hey Bryce first off everyone loves an underdog and further keep in mind the Russian armed force’s overwhelming size and arms advantage. Second, there is general agreement, that the Ukrainian’s punch above their weight class and have been very innovative, clever and adaptable. That’s a legitimate and interesting story all by itself.
The Ukrainians (no need for an apostrophe) are not sacrificing their young men in sufficient quantities to satisfy the blood lust of the US media, as the above article makes clear. There is also the fact that Ukrainian men are far from enthusiastic about dying for their country, as the numbers who have fled abroad or who have taken up higher education to avoid the draft show. Not quite the ‘united against Russia’ country that the corporate media in Ukraine and here claim.
Thank Google for the apostrophe Ms English teacher. Beyond that address the body of the comments. Better yet don’t write your nonsensical words at all as its worthless crap.
Another disinterested commenter who sincerely seeks intelligent dialogue…
I would hope Ukraine is punching above their weight. They are being supplied with an endless supply of weapons by many countries, intelligence supplied by US, UK, guidance by US and training supplied by many. With the exception of humans, Russia is warring with NATO.
Good piece and there is no doubt that the mainstream corporate media chose a road of mostly propaganda vs actual journalism. That said the Russians have bitten off more than they can chew and expected. The have shown a fair amount of incompetence too and certainly have had a very significant and higher casualty rate than Putin had planned on. I would posit going forward, there is a strong case to be made of a possible stalemate, despite the clear Russian military advantage. Last and interestingly left unsaid in the article, Sweden and Finland applied to NATO well after the Russians invaded Ukraine. I believe that’s call insurance.
“Hyping the Ukranian counterofensive”. What are YOU hyping? A Russian victory? Which side are you on? Don’t let ideology blind you to the facts.
Truth is truth regardless of “which side” a commenter or journalist is on.
The rest of the world that doesn’t consume Western MSM knows that Ukraine is toast.
Coming from a guy that has his own ‘truths’ and ranted on and on above …
You have no sensible arguments and would dismiss any reasonable rebuttal by stating you disagree and/or anyone’s sources are invalid but your own. Putin is not a rational actor who has miscalculated significantly. No, he is a vile, evil lunatic leader who threatens to use nuclear weapons on a regular basis, targets and then sends, cruse missiles to apartment buildings, playgrounds and many other civilian targets. Your clear anti Western bias – at all costs – reveals a level of foolish behavior which is truly staggering in my perspective.
@Anaisha Chopra, September 16, 2023 at 8:22 pm:
Your “perspective” is the victim of “Manufacturing Consent.”
You obviously believe everything the MSM reports. Putin, unlike Blinken, Nuland, and Biden, IS a rational actor. He doesn’t want a hostile military force (NATO) on his doorstep. The doorstep through which Napoleon and Germany twice invaded Russia. Especially the doorstep where Nazis have a strong presence.
You have the typical Western mindset: How good anyone think we aren’t the good guys?
You know who knows we aren’t the good guys? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Russia, . . and pretty soon much of Europe when they have no heat because Biden bombed Nord Stream.
You should try to diversify your news’ sources. If you did you’d know that Ukrazi Land is in big trouble, they are losing their fighters at a 7-to-1 ratio.
And just a person of AVERAGE intelligence should figure THIS out: you heard of “A war of attrition?” The Russian population is 5 times that of Ukrazi Land. The Russian land-mass is the largest in the world, has plenty of resources. Western Ukraine has nothing. The West is out of weapons to give.
Ukraine is toast.
And Bill’s (Dmitry?) rant continues … How much are they paying you ? Let me repeat. Your clear anti Western bias – against all the available facts – reveals a level of foolish behavior and statements which are truly staggering in my view.
@Anaisha Chopra, September 17, 2023 at 5:03 pm:
What’s staggering is the ignorance of The West, 13% of the world’s population are hypnotized into a neocon bubble. Judging by your name, you should try news from India: The Hindustan Times; TFI Global; WION; Firstpost – they aren’t cowed by fear of losing access to American politicians. They’ll tell you when the war began (not Feb 2022). Oh and they’ll tell you who is winning: It’s not your Ukrazis.
Free yourself from “The Maya.” The illusion has you captured.
Completely expected is how NAFO trolls and/or neocons attempt to smear Bill and his historically accurate commentary with the old “Russian asset” or “Putin apologist” or even racist name calling like “Dmitry” and “Ivan” – and while it’s totally expected it’s still 100% pathetic and testament to an utter lack of rational, truthful rebuttals from the Uncle Scam Banderite scum apologists.
…you forgot kindergartens and maternity hospitals. Keep something in mind: your country has been on a war economy since 1942. Its state media (“of record,” if you prefer) constantly maintain the illusion of “enemies.” When your country prepares for war against the most recent designated enemy (using someone else’s country and someone else’s people), its state media prepare you for it by demonizing that designated enemy. Knowing that you are too intelligent to believe that an entire people are monsters or subhumans, their leader is turned into a mad, cruel dictator who is holding his people hostage and is motivated by obscure historical-mystical-nationalistic beliefs. Like, you know, Hitler. Plus, he got Trump elected. So if the state (or corporate if you prefer) media told you Putin impales infants on a bayonet and roasts them while drinking vodka with his macho soldier buddies, you’d believe it.
Excellent summary of the “progress” of the war in Ukraine.
Yet another mission creep ill advised loser. Uncle Sam post WW 2 is batting zero.
This article should be read at the UN general assembly!
First off Bryce Greene is probably my favorite FAIR author and this post confirms that. However, I take issue with several of his points. His ‘endless conflict’ supposition by the NATO is frankly, in my view, more of Putin’s total miscalculation of a military action conducted by Russia
Bryce Greene you are awesome as usual!
Well written article. But it largely ignores the Ukranian perspective. Ukrainians have chosen to fight just as some Iraqis chose to resist Americans and South Africans fought apartheid. It would have easier and safer to roll over and lick the boots of the aggressor.
Does this publication have a bias to accept all Russian narratives, as there has *not once been a single critique* of Russia since the Crimea annexation of 2014 (https://fair.org/topic/ukraine/page/3/)?
Of course not, you only focus on *American* media bias and don’t touch global media. It’s not your job, not your purpose. Unfortunately, by denigrating one side and ignoring the other you (intentionally or not) promote the ideas of ignored side. It’s a lazy approach, half the effort of real journalism, and the damage caused is not easily quantifiable by your lack of effort. But you don’t have to think about that -you’re doing good journalism! For example, accusing the US of causing Nord Stream mere days after the incident with *zero* evidence (https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-us-culpability-in-nord-stream-attack/). The bad biased media isn’t pointing this out, but YOU will do the real work!
Only Russia is to trust – it’s just FAIR reporting!
You too are forgetting something, pal. The “real journalism” you talk about is in fact the official narrative of the corporate state. And as for the “global media,” that US/NATO line is also the hardpan foundation of reporting throughout the allied countries’ media. I know that from 35 years’ experience living in Europe. And I’ve been watching the US/NATO line unfold every evening on the news and every drive time on the radio since the Russian Invasion. It’s total control of the narrative. And you have the balls to accuse FAIR of being biased toward Russia when they point that out? Meanwhile, if you really looked at the media in countries outside the Atlanticist bloc, I think you’d see that the narrative control is beginning to slip.
I don’t find it surprising at all that Jake Sullivan, Victoria Newland, and Anthony Blinken are taking a harder line than pentagon officials. Unlike members of the pentagon, who may have actually experienced war, neither Sullivan, Newland, nor Blinken have.
It’s funny, but we could take all of the things you charge and apply them to your own reporting.
Go on and give us some examples. We’re patient and will wait. Something tells me you can’t, though.
I would hope Ukraine is punching above their weight. They are being supplied with an endless supply of weapons by many countries, intelligence supplied by US, UK, guidance by US and training supplied by many. With the exception of humans, Russia is warring with NATO.
@no way, September 16, 2023 at 8:34 pm:
So I’m “Ivan?”
Right. If I’m against the Vietnam war I’m Ho Chi Minh. If I’m against Reagan’s right-wing death squads in Central America I’m a commie. If I’m against invading Iraq I’m a Saddam apologist.
Life is real simple to you. That’s a lot easier than taking time to try and see the world through vision untainted by the MSM.
Continues within corporate media starting from day 1 that the Ukraine is close to winning the war while Russia is close to losing the war. One of the goals is to keep war party members engaged and willing to continue the conflict regardless of the cost to the West or the Ukrainians. I am not sure, though, if there are parts of the security state that understand the reality on the ground. Some very good pundits in alternative outlets have come to the conclusion that American military, state, and intelligence leadership actually believe their own propaganda.
The more the politicians talk and the Ukrainians DIE, the more I believe the war to weaken Russia’s war with Ukraine seems to be more about killing Russian speakers and selling it to Black Rock at this juncture. The only fly in this soup is the military might that Russia has honed during The Great War On Terror’s two decades of chasing Muslims around the world and torturing them. Mean while Russia & China were building up their nuclear and missile technology that are the core of Great Game peer to peer jostling of the Great Powers. Two decades of research and new innovation plus trillions of dollars squandered hectoring Muslims. Look at who were the ones who’s conniving got Ukraine and Russia into war. It was the Zionist & Neocons like Nuland, Biden Piatt and the Clintons armed with $5 billion dollars of The National Endowment For Democracy’s money that powered the Coup D’Etat that overthrew the elected president of Ukraine and installed a Nazi friendly & Russian hate driven takeover of Ukraine by the Obama administration.
How many snipers can someone rent for $5 billion dollars…..????????
How many died in the 2014 Maidan Coup D’Etat…..?????
Answer: Altogether, 108 civilian protesters and 13 police officers were killed in Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity (or the ‘Maidan Revolution’), which was the culmination of the Euromaidan protest movement.
If you can accept that Ukraine is composed of at least two rather distinct ethnic populations, more or less divided east-west, the futility of this conflict becomes stark. Putin cannot succeed in Russifying all of Ukraine any better than Biden can westernize it.
The answer is simple, if great powers would come to their senses: split the country down the middle along easily recognized lines, and make them trading partners. But that would save too many lives and stop the power games for America and Russia to consider doing.
Keep up the good work, Brice. Besides the tragic Ukrainians, workers in the US and Europe stand to suffer the most due to these systematic lies. You’re honest reporting is a public service!
Few websites attract such an abundance of low information NAFO know-nothings as does FAIR, for some reason.
Same silly mindset from Obama’s slavery causing war in Libya..they really think if they start the war in the dark it’s good because others by the millions are dying for their personal greed.
I believe everything wrote was actually very logical.
But, what about this? what if you were to create a
killer headline? I mean, I don’t want to tell you
how to run your blog, but suppose you added a post title that
grabbed a person’s attention? I mean Hyping Ukraine Counteroffensive, US Press Chose Propaganda Over Journalism – FAIR is kinda vanilla.
You could peek at Yahoo’s home page and watch how they create news headlines to get viewers to click.
You might add a video or a picture or two to grab readers
excited about what you’ve got to say. In my opinion, it could make your blog a little
bit more interesting.
Feel free to visit my page: demilked.Com