Thread by @ggreenwald

There are so many relevant facts that run counter to the mandated narrative for which no space exists now. But it's always the same cycle with wars: it takes weeks, usually months, sometimes years for the mob inebriation to wear off, and only then does sobriety and regret emerge.

It's not as if people are suddenly inventing or dredging up these claims about Zelensky's massive wealth being laundered and hidden throughout the west through his ties to the Ukrainian oligarch funding Azov. Read this, from 2021 on the Pandora Papers:

aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4…

Just last year, even **the Atlantic Council** was warning about Zelensky's deeply disturbing and seemingly corrupt dependence on this Ukrainian oligarch, under sanctions in the west, and the favors and silencing of dissent done on his behalf:

atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainea…

The US/NATO are flooding this country with very dangerous weapons. It's clear they intend to arm an insurgency for years to keep Russia bogged down. Some journalists have decided their role is activism for Ukraine, but journalism must highlight the risks from this, including Azov

One of the most beloved and influential accounts about the war has been @IAPonomarenko of the "The Kyiv Independent." 40k followers on Feb. 21, now almost 1m. He has ties with Azov, a neo-Nazi group. Maybe you care, maybe not. But journalism should include facts, not boosterism.

All of his utterances go viral as unquestioned fact, often included in major western media outlets, no matter how bereft of evidence they are. Again, maybe you don't care. You like what he says, don't want to know. But journalism isn't about pleasing.

In every war that interests the US, any dissenters of any kind are automatically branded by its corporate media as traitors, on the side of the Enemy, sympathizing with the Evildoers. A WashPost column today maligns a large number of media figures this way. Here's Peter Hitchens: