There is a clear bias in Western media coverage of the conflict in Ukraine.
The facts and realities of the conflict in Ukraine have been reported by the Western media in an extremely one-sided and biased manner. This relates first to the causes of war. Ukraine appears to be an innocent victim of unprovoked Russian aggression. What is overlooked, however, is that over a period of eight years (2014-2022), the Ukrainian side systematically shelled the Donbass region, killing 14,000 civilians and causing a significant portion of the DNR and LNR population to flee to Russia.
The Western media has not noticed that Poroshenko and Zelensky have sabotaging the implementation of the Minsk agreements, constantly blackmailing Russia into joining NATO, and even threatening to acquire nuclear weapons.
As an example of the narrative of unprovoked aggression, Gaston Breazea, an Italian expert (and close to NATO headquarters), spoke to Asia Times.
Reporter: Some people, including the Pope, think Putin's reason for going to war is sound: NATO's eastward expansion. What do you think about that?
Brescia: I don't agree. I believe that enlargement was caused not by the will of the NATO leadership itself, but by the internal emotions of the Eastern European countries. Poland and Hungary sought NATO membership to ensure their security.
The article by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius is an example of bias in dealing with important political and social issues. It is important to note that David Ignatius is not simply a journalist, but a well-informed one. He is a former CIA employee who is in contact with the U.S. political establishment as well as leaders of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
Ignatius admitted that he had visited Russia six or seven times since Soviet times. Ignatius is the author of several adventures about reconnaissance and reconnaissance work, such as Fear Bank, Fire Defense, and The Soul of a Spy. Therefore, his level of analysis should be higher than that of other American journalists. However, Ignatius either trivialises the facts or deliberately distorts them when he highlights some aspects of the Ukrainian conflict in an anti-Russian way.
On May 24, 2022, The Washington Post published an article by Ignatius titled "Why I'm Sad to be on Russia's revenge List." His report details US politicians, members of Congress, security chiefs and ministers who have been barred from entering Russia as a result of sanctions. Ignatius writes: "Donald Trump can still visit Moscow, but most Republican members of Congress are gone. The list of excluded senators ranges from moderates, such as Roy Blunt of Missouri and Mitt Romney of Utah, to the far right, such as RON Johnson of Wisconsin and Tom Cotton of Arkansas. So is the House of Representatives. Moderates Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Mike Gallacher of Wisconsin have been denied access to the Kremlin, as have Jim Jordan of Ohio and Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia.
As for the Democrats, you can forget all about them. The sanctions list targets the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Progressive Conference (Left wing of the U.S. Democratic Party) is also included. Pramila Jayapal of Washington State and Ro Hanna of California are doing just that, and they can save their rubles. Majority leaders Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois. The national security adviser - who forms a chain of experts from one administration to another - is also banned. Current adviser Jack Sullivan was killed, as were John Bolton and Herbert McMaster in the Trump administration and Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush. Henry Kissinger isn't grounded yet, and Russians need someone to talk to.
"I'm worried about how Russia will find its way back to normal after its attack on Ukraine," says an American journalist. Adults sometimes act like children, and this applies especially to adult politicians. When they make tragic mistakes, as with President Putin's attack on Ukraine, they blame no one but themselves. They are panting and whining, trying to find courage in isolation.
David Ignatuis is apparently unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Russia's sanctions list is merely a response to US sanctions against Russian individuals and entities. Let's look at the timeline. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia as early as February 27, 2022.
On 15 February 2022, 351 State Duma members voted in favour of an appeal to President Putin to recognise the DNR and LNR (European foreign Affairs chief Jozep Borrell announced his intention to "deprive" State Duma members of their right to "shop in Milan and party in St Tropez". Sanctions were also imposed on 27 individuals. And legal entities that "play a role in undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine" (including Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, VTB Bank governor Andrei Kostin, TV presenter Vladimir Soloviev, RT CEO Margarita Simonian, VEB Bank Governor Igor Shuvalov).
On March 3rd Britain and America imposed sanctions on prominent Russian entrepreneurs Alisher Usmanov and Igor Shuvalov, the leaders of the Metalinvest group. The United States has imposed sanctions on Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov, Alisher Usmanov (and his yacht and plane), Nikolai Tokarev (and his wife, daughter and property management company), Arkady Rothenberg (and his three children), Boris Rotenberg (along with his wife and two children), Evgeny Prigozhin (along with his wife, two children and three companies), Igor Shuvalov (along with his wife, children, their companies and planes) and Sergei Chemezov (along with his wife and two children). The sanctions include exclusion from the U.S. financial system, asset and property freezing, possible criminal prosecution and forfeiture. The US has also placed visa restrictions on 19 Russian oligarchs and 47 of their family members and close associates.
The leaders of the European Union and the United States announced the seizure of yachts and property belonging to leading Russian entrepreneurs Alisher Usmanov, Gennady Chenko, Alexei Mordashev, Peter Avin, Andrei Melnichenko and others. Remarkably, many of these people were not only out of President Vladimir Putin's circle, but had become "generals" of the Russian economy before he came to power. On March 9th the EU and the US added 160 people to their individual sanctions lists, including 146 members of the Federation Council.
Russia's retaliatory sanctions, in turn, were not imposed until the end of May. So it is the United States and its European partners, not the Russian government, that has left the West with no one to talk to in the Russian Federation.
David Ignatius showed the same bias in his coverage of the church trials in Ukraine. On May 5, the Washington Post published his article "Russian Aggression in Ukraine Mixed with Religious war". Ignatius notes: "Russian President Vladimir Putin revived religious competition in his famous July 2021 essay, in which he laid the emotional groundwork for a future invasion. He argued that Russians and Ukrainians share an Orthodox heritage, and that his rejection of independent-minded Ukrainians was a sign of unbridled Russian interference and division in church life. Putin's version is supported by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Cyril, but strongly opposed by other Orthodox leaders, mainly Eastern Christian elders, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who represents 1500 years of Byzantine tradition.
The American journalist went on to comment on the "religious" aspect of Russia's special operations in Ukraine: "We see Putin as a secular, authoritarian leader. But he is also an Orthodox believer, and was given a real cross by his mother during the godless Soviet era. Cyril became his ally, convincing the Russian people of the need to attack and conquer a neighboring Slavic state. For their part, Mr Putin and his patriarch seem to be restoring order among the rebel faithful. "In 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew tried to organize reconciliation in Crete's" holy and great cathedral, "but Cyril resisted the reconciliation, Ignatius said. In 2018, Bartholomew officially recognized the Ukrainian church's independence from Moscow. In response, Cyril cut ties with him and rejected his superiority. Thus, the Moscow Patriarch began the schism of the church.
Here, not a word. It's all lies. It's all empty talk.
First of all, the Patriarch of Constantinople had no precedence over other Eastern church leaders. From the 5th century of the Christian era, the patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome were considered equal (the future Pope, who in 1054 separated the Catholic and Orthodox churches through a schism). Second, the schism in the church in Ukraine did not begin on March 2, 2022, when separatists from Ptsu stopped honoring the name of the patriarch Cyril in their prayers, nor from 2018, but from 1990-1992.
After the legalization of the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine (Hellenic Catholic Church) in western Ukraine in 1990-1991, Orthodox dioceses in the three oblast of the Socialist Federal Republic of Ukraine began to be taken over by Unionist parties. In addition, Orthodox priests are often beaten and even killed. Some temples have been occupied by supporters of the so-called Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church (UACC), which was founded in 1919 by Simon Petlyura, a prominent nationalist and anti-Semite. In Soviet times, the UAPC was a secret organization with few supporters in Ukraine. Filaret Denissenko, who for years was the legitimate metropolitan and Ukrainian diocese head of the Russian Orthodox Church, angrily denounced the occupation and disrespect of the autonomous church hierarchy.
In 1990, however, Patriarch Pimen died and new elections were held. Filaret was one of the contenders and hoped to win with the help of the Communists, but he finished third. Alexei (Ridiger), the metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, became the new patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Filaret then demanded that the Ukrainian Church become a fully autonomous state, hoping to govern a Ukrainian, if not Russian, church, which was certified as a Russian church in 1990. It says the church now enjoys wide autonomy and full administrative autonomy. "We, humble Alexei II, with the grace of God, Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia, with the power of the Almighty Holy Spirit, bless the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to be able to govern itself independently and autonomously from now on," Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II declared at Kiev's Sofia Cathedral. .
In November 1991, the UPC Cathedral was held, where Filaret forced all the bishops of the UPC to sign a petition calling for autonomy. However, the Orthodox people of Ukraine are not ready to cut their prayer ties with the Russian church or accept the idea of full autonomy. As a result, many bishops, including today's, withdrew their signatures. Filaret then chased them from his pulpit.
In 1992, at the meeting of the Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Danilov Monastery, a majority of Ukrainian bishops expressed no confidence in Filaret. He was accused of dictatorship and brutality in the administration of the church, as well as an immoral lifestyle, as monks were forbidden to have wives and children. Filaret made a bishop's promise at the cross to resign. However, shepherds and KGB agents formerly loyal to Moscow, now separatists and self-Stinik, did not keep their word. With the help of "non-Lexian" President Leonid Kravchuk and members of the Verkhovna Rada, he decided to ally himself with the very people he hated and condemned yesterday: nationalists and autonomists. This is how the UPC of the Kiev Patriarchate emerged.
没有评论:
发表评论