What’s this about “Ukraine’s last stand?” How can that be? For weeks, Fake News had been trumpeting Russia’s disastrous campaign against the plucky Ukrainians — even calling it “Putin’s Vietnam.” Now, this sudden turn of events from Sulzberger’s Times:
“After weeks of shelling and bombings, the Russian siege of the critical Ukrainian port city of Mariupol has culminated in a last stand by a few thousand Ukrainian troops, holed up in a sprawling, smoldering steel plant that backs up to the sea. Russia had given the Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol until Sunday morning to lay down their weapons or be “eliminated.” …… Capturing Mariupol would be a major victory for Russia that could strengthen its push to command Ukraine’s east. (emphasis added)
Evidently, the “disinformation” put out by the Russian media these past 7 weeks was true after all. The big bad Rooskies have indeed been “kicking ass and taking names” all along — so much so, in fact, that even “the paper of record” is now compelled to acknowledge the reality. “Putin’s Vietnam” my ass!
While researching old archived issues of the New York Slimes from the World War II years, your original source historian here always noticed a similar pattern of spinning crushing defeat into stalemate or even victory for the ALL LIES– until circumstances rendered the lie no longer tenable. Always in justifiable preemptive self-defense, the Germans would easily roll through country after country after country. And always, the Times would hype up the heroic effectiveness of the Polish, or Norwegian, or Dutch, or Greek etc. “resistance,” and the UK-France “counterattacks.” Days later, when the Germans would occupy the Capital city, the truth of the rout would finally be reported.
It’s not clear what the motives for initially portraying a rout as a defeat are. Wishful thinking in the form of reporting? A bias toward believing the propaganda of the favored nation? A desire to prop up the illusion of a close match so that the western nations will be more apt to help the underdog? An attempt to penetrate the population of the enemy state with demoralizing news? A combination of all these factors?
Though we can’t define the motives with 100% certainty; the historical pattern of depicting the defeat of the preferred state as a close match or even victory is well established, as the rebutted Times’ WW 2 headlines below indicate:
The day-to-day reporting throughout all of World War followed that same pattern of optimistic deception — until, of course, the tide truly started to turn against Germany in 1943. When (not “if”) Mariupol is completely liberated, the end of Putin’s targeted military operation (we hesitate to call it a “war”) will be near. Then all of the idiot libtards can pull their stupid yellow & blue flags down (there are 5 such homes along the route that I often drive to get to the local stores) and maybe put those “Thank You Healthcare Heroes” signs back up in honor of the BA.2 “variant” currently making its way through the malleable minds of the overlapping kingdoms of Normiedom & Libtardia.
The string of “causes” never ends for these juvenile junkies.