I quote from elsewhere: "It’s absurd to deny Zelensky’s legitimacy after he literally forewent presidential elections, but it’s not absurd to openly deny the legitimacy of Romanian and Georgian elections with zero evidence of interference?"
To give a crude analogy, would the French tolerate a brutal repression of French speaking civilians in South Kensington?
2. There was a peace deal on the table in April 2022, which would have seen Ukraine in a better position than it is today, and with few men killed. What happened?
From a letter that published by Reaction in in January 2023 (web.archive.org/web/20230316091652/https://reaction.life/letters-enough-with-the-zelensky-hero-worship-ukraine/): Consider “Denis Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, assassinated on March 5 by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) because he was too favorable to Russia and was considered a traitor. The same fate befell Dmitry Demyanenko, former deputy head of the SBU’s main directorate for Kiev and its region, who was assassinated on March 10 because he was too favorable to an agreement with Russia—he was shot by the Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”) militia. This militia is associated with the Mirotvorets website, which lists the “enemies of Ukraine,” with their personal data, addresses and telephone numbers, so that they can be harassed or even eliminated; a practice that is punishable in many countries, but not in the Ukraine”.
None of this excuses an invasion. But it does show that claims that one side is purely in the wrong - and the other side is with the angels - is simplistic. And that one side engages in propaganda - and the other doesn't - is also simplistic.
Thanks for sharing. I take your point about the danger of a simplistic narrative and I don't doubt that both sides engage in propaganda. I have noticed, for example, the tendency for reports on shelling at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to mislead in the instances when said shelling doesn't appear to have been conducted by Russian forces.
As for the 2022 peace deal that may have placed Ukraine in a stronger position and saved a lot of bloodshed on both sides, I do remember your letter. And last year’s foreign affairs investigation, shedding light on just how close both sides may in fact have come to signing one, made for difficult reading.
While there may be compelling reasons to object to, as you put it, the hero-worshipping of Zelensky, the word "inversion" does still spring to mind when it comes to Trump's refusal to label Putin a dictator, paired with his eagerness to parrot Putin's line that Zelensky is "a dictator without elections" on account of his failure to hold a vote in 2024. An election in Ukraine, in the midst of a Russian invasion would have been completely unworkable. Nor are wartime elections constitutionally required. Ukraine's parliament overwhelmingly backed postponing the elections and, while I appreciate it's difficult to grasp the true independence of much polling, polls throughout the war have found comfortable majorities in favour of only holding a vote once the war is over.
Inverting reality?
I quote from elsewhere: "It’s absurd to deny Zelensky’s legitimacy after he literally forewent presidential elections, but it’s not absurd to openly deny the legitimacy of Romanian and Georgian elections with zero evidence of interference?"
1. I suggest reading this detailed history of the origins of the conflict: https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/.
To give a crude analogy, would the French tolerate a brutal repression of French speaking civilians in South Kensington?
2. There was a peace deal on the table in April 2022, which would have seen Ukraine in a better position than it is today, and with few men killed. What happened?
From a letter that published by Reaction in in January 2023 (web.archive.org/web/20230316091652/https://reaction.life/letters-enough-with-the-zelensky-hero-worship-ukraine/): Consider “Denis Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, assassinated on March 5 by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) because he was too favorable to Russia and was considered a traitor. The same fate befell Dmitry Demyanenko, former deputy head of the SBU’s main directorate for Kiev and its region, who was assassinated on March 10 because he was too favorable to an agreement with Russia—he was shot by the Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”) militia. This militia is associated with the Mirotvorets website, which lists the “enemies of Ukraine,” with their personal data, addresses and telephone numbers, so that they can be harassed or even eliminated; a practice that is punishable in many countries, but not in the Ukraine”.
Who is responsible for those assassinations?
PS. What did CNN 'invert' in this reporting of a Ukrainian attack on the Donbas in 2014?
https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1892410776905797983
None of this excuses an invasion. But it does show that claims that one side is purely in the wrong - and the other side is with the angels - is simplistic. And that one side engages in propaganda - and the other doesn't - is also simplistic.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing. I take your point about the danger of a simplistic narrative and I don't doubt that both sides engage in propaganda. I have noticed, for example, the tendency for reports on shelling at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to mislead in the instances when said shelling doesn't appear to have been conducted by Russian forces.
As for the 2022 peace deal that may have placed Ukraine in a stronger position and saved a lot of bloodshed on both sides, I do remember your letter. And last year’s foreign affairs investigation, shedding light on just how close both sides may in fact have come to signing one, made for difficult reading.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
While there may be compelling reasons to object to, as you put it, the hero-worshipping of Zelensky, the word "inversion" does still spring to mind when it comes to Trump's refusal to label Putin a dictator, paired with his eagerness to parrot Putin's line that Zelensky is "a dictator without elections" on account of his failure to hold a vote in 2024. An election in Ukraine, in the midst of a Russian invasion would have been completely unworkable. Nor are wartime elections constitutionally required. Ukraine's parliament overwhelmingly backed postponing the elections and, while I appreciate it's difficult to grasp the true independence of much polling, polls throughout the war have found comfortable majorities in favour of only holding a vote once the war is over.