The Guardian Coverage of the Ukraine War, Then vs. Now
The Guardian's Ukraine war policy is 'If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all'
Notice anything different between today’s Guardian headlines:
compared to their headlines one year ago:
Notice what’s missing today but not missing one year ago?
Coverage of the Ukraine war is missing, that’s what.
The reason The Guardian, in its infinite wisdom, wants the Ukraine war to go away is because—as is obvious to anybody following the war without Western-media blinders on—Russia is winning the war, without any doubt.
Russia’s strategy has been aggressive attrition, in other words its aim has been to destroy the Ukrainian military force by killing its soldiers and destroying its weapons and air force and air defense. Russia’s aim has not been primarily to seize more territory. As all who admit reality agree, Russia is well on the way to destroying Ukraine’s military force. Ukraine now lacks the manpower and the ammunition it needs to sustain the war for much longer. The Russian military force, in stark contrast, is huge and growing larger, with an industrial base that produces far more ammunition and weapons than the West—even including the United States—can even dream of approaching.
In contrast to the Western nations, where the willingness of the general public to make sacrifices to provide Ukraine with money and weapons and ammunition to fight Russia is dwindling, the general public in Russia strongly supports Russia’s Special Military Operation for two very understandable reasons:
The Russian general public wants the Kiev government to be rendered militarily neutralized because the Kiev government since 2014 has been using artillery shelling to kill civilians in the Russian-speaking Donbass region (formerly) of Ukraine, as part of its anti-Russia ethnic cleansing program demanded by the people in Ukraine who worship the World War II pro-Nazi Ukrainians who helped the Nazis kill Ukrainian Jews and who sided with Hitler against Russia;
Russians today don’t want NATO nuclear weapons aimed at them from Ukraine where they would take only about 5 minutes to hit Russian cities, and so they support the goal of the Special Military Operation to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO (same reason Americans in 1962 wanted the nuclear missiles on Cuba to be removed, right?)
Why I support the Russian soldiers in Ukraine but not Putin in Russia
To read more about the above, please read my article explaining why I support the Russian soldiers in Ukraine but not Putin in Russia here. In this article you will see that the Western mass media in February of 2022 decided to make something else disappear (note that “Slava Ukraini!” below means Glory to Ukraine!):
Russia is an oppressive anti-egalitarian nation, just as is Ukraine, and just as is China and the United States. Likewise, in 1861 both the slave-based Confederacy and the northern Union were oppressive anti-egalitarian nations. Nonetheless, good people then, even if they did not support the anti-working-class Abraham Lincoln, supported the Union soldiers in the Confederate territory who enabled the slaves to escape slavery by defeating the slave-owners’ military forces. That’s why good people today support the Russian soldiers in Ukraine: they are defeating the military that is waging a violent ethnic cleansing war against Russian-speaking people.
Why did the U.S. provoke Russia and persist in waging a proxy war against Russia that it knew it could not win?
Before the Russian Special Military Operation began, and when Obama was still president, Obama declared—rightly and even undeniably—that Russia had “escalatory dominance” in the region of Ukraine. As ForeignPolicy.com reported:
Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: “Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” In other words, a U.S. president all but acknowledged Ukraine as a Russian client state, telegraphing to the leader of an aggressive, revisionist power that the United States would stand down if Russia were to widen its war. Moreover, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance—that the Kremlin would always be willing to exercise superior power to get its way in Ukraine, whereas the United States would not—became the governing principle of U.S. policy. This principle echoes to this day, holding back U.S. support for Ukraine.
Read here why the U.S./West, for lack of both ammunition and manpower, cannot defeat Russia in Ukraine:
Many people reporting on the Ukraine proxy war against Russia are perplexed about why the U.S. government would wage such an unwinnable war. They wonder if it’s because U.S. leaders are incompetent, delusional, obsessed with hatred of Russia, or perhaps just acting as tools of Raytheon and other weapons manufacturers. The actual explanation is none of the above; it is what I discuss in great detail in my article here (if you think the explanation is simply Raytheon et al, then be sure to read the sub-section titled, “THE CULPRIT IS NOT ONLY THE ARMS MANUFACTURERS.”)