Guardian is publishing Russian Propaganda

[Swayingpalmtrees]

AIBU to be very disappointed that the Guardian has resorted to publishing Russian propaganda. It was shocking to read, largely inaccurate and wholly from the Russian perspective. I am all for listening to all sides, but there was no effort to understand how Ukraine feels, Ukraine's objective is clearly to win the war and reclaim their nation, and blaming the western leaders for arming Ukraine and the bloodshed caused by the Russians is somewhat misleading, Ukraine have every right to defend themselves.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/27/ukraine-war-end-putin-russia-talks

It’s worrying that you cannot see, no amount of analysis or understanding a Russian point of view could detract from the fact that yes, he is a villain.

Ok say we agree that based on current intelligence that the public know, Putin is the villian, for historical context and our recording of history, we still need detail events, contexts, understanding of different perspectives, to record how putin became the villain.

Or would you prefer historical inaccuracies ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10791545/Zelensky-says-bridges-Ukraine-Russia-not-destroyed.html?adobe_mc=TS%3D1651893593

@Justanotherlurker No Cameron didn't, neither did May or Johnson, yes training given but no actually weapons given or even sold to Ukraine... its all there in the public record.

The first time the UK looked at supply missile systems was in October 2021.

Again, no hawk, i don't believe in NATO troops on the ground of even a NFZ, i did argue that both would be needed if UN troops sent to Mariupol or to Power stations.
But if Ukraine is to defeat Russia, then the Black Sea blockade needs lifting and far more offensive weapons sent.

As for your allegations, you tried this tack before and it ll get the same response as before too.

Well I think seeing the author of the should immediately cause people to question the intentions of the piece.

it is cleverly written to coral the reader down the line of negotiate with Russia or risk world war 3. Of course the options presented in the article aren’t the only ways forward (despite being presented as such, psychological research indicates that giving people a choice of two things will usually result in them making a choice, here this is basically saying choose between negotiation or potential Armageddon).

it might not be strictly propaganda, but a well written piece of persuasive writing
with a very obvious intention (especially given the source). But it’s The Guardian so about par for the course really.

• corral not coral😂

it is cleverly written to coral the reader down the line of negotiate with Russia or risk world war 3. Of course the options presented in the article aren’t the only ways forward (despite being presented as such, psychological research indicates that giving people a choice of two things will usually result in them making a choice, here this is basically saying choose between negotiation or potential Armageddon).

Exactly.

I don't really care about whether this does or doesn't meet people's definitions of propaganda. But it's quite obviously a piece that reflects Russian interests and the war as they would wish it to be rather than as it is in reality. Coincidentally or otherwise. The Ukrainian journalist whose viewpoint I linked to upthread made a very good point that the first paragraph is simply what you have to say in the UK now if you want anyone to listen to your don't arm Ukraine arguments.

It's an opinion piece... Their reporting on Ukraine, published all day every day, bears little resemblance to your description.