What's particularly disturbing about the Met's firing of the star Russian soprano Anna Netrebk is she never praised the war. She denounced it! But that wasn't enough: they demanded she publicly denounce Putin, and fired her when she refused. There's a new story like this daily:
When you read about historical atrocities like FDR's internment of all people of Japanese descent, you wonder how it could've been tolerated.
Then you live through an event like this -- institutions holding all Russians responsible for Putin's acts -- and you see how it happens.
It's hard to know in each of these cases whether the motive is fear of being vilified by a social media mob for not severing all ties with everything Russian, or just an affirmative quest for applause, but there's no denying we've reached insane levels:
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:
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:
"In Washington and European capitals, officials anticipate that the Russian military will reverse its early losses, setting the stage for a long, bloody insurgency," so the US is creating ways to "support a Ukrainian resistance."
Some have speculated that the US goal isn't to protect Ukrainians -- that's the pretext -- but rather sacrifice Ukraine by turning it into Syria or Afghanistan where war rages for years and destroys the country, bogging down Russia. No proof, but US actions consistent with that.
Just last week, Hillary Clinton on MNSBC explicitly invoked the Syria and Afghanistan model when explaining her vision for Ukraine: arm an insurgency that keeps Russia bogged down, fighting for years. Not good for Russia, but worse for those countries:
I don't blame Ukrainian leaders for using propaganda and disinformation. All countries in war do.
The problem is US media outlets and various activists have been the most aggressive in ratifying it, renouncing their role as sorting fact from fiction to endorse "useful lies."
One of the most striking aspects of the propaganda regime imposed in the West is how so many once-common views -- NATO expansion threatens Moscow, US runs Ukraine, etc -- are now taboo.
For years the dangers of neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine were reported:
Along with many War on Terror critics, I long argued: a key reason it continued was the media rarely if ever personalized or even noted the victims of US/UK violence, so they remained invisible. Imagine how different things might have been if they had received the same coverage:
The media attention on Ukrainian victims, refugees, and others is fully appropriate. A key journalistic function is to ensure people see the real results of the policies they support. But that's what was almost never done during 20 years of US wars:
No such thing as an "innocent" Russia person any more, says Obama's former Ambassador. Seems like that premise, if accepted, could lead to some extremely dark places. Regardless of the outcomes, the claim itself is noxious.
I continue to think the reason these kinds of odious frameworks are accepted is because so many people either didn't live through 2002 as adults or have forgotten what was done.
Bin Laden's argument for why US civilians were legit targets was they choose their leaders and thus are responsible for their acts. That was widely (and accurately) viewed as reprehensible. Even more odd to claim Putin is a totalitarian dictator, but *all Russians* are guilty.
Read @robertwrighter today on why it's so immoral to use the cliché "whataboutism" to prevent an examination of your own country's past crimes in order to bar any inquiry into whether the principles they're claiming to support are genuine.
Also worth watching, at this important moment, this video from @jeremyscahill where he explains how the "whataboutism" cliché suppresses, by design, a vital examination of our own country's behavior to claim we support standards we refuse to abide by.