Share this page!

Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Twitter logo
Mar 5 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Just a stunning article from NYT. For 5 years, US corporate outlets have depicted disinformation as the gravest of threats, requiring censorship.

Yet here they use a playful, borderline-admiring tone for the charming lies spread by Ukrainian officials:

nytimes.com/2022/03/03/tec…
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:

theguardian.com/world/2019/apr…
Nobody suggests the Ukrainian government itself is neo-Nazi. That's absurd. But mainstream western outlets have for years warned that these are powerful fascist militias with ties to the government. Saying that is now "pro-Putin" propaganda, but where will all these weapons go?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ggreenwald

Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 7
"Some 74% of Americans - including solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats - said the US and its allies in the NATO should impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the poll found.

An equally bipartisan 80% of Americans said the United States should stop buying Russian oil."
It's definitely reasonable to assume -- and the Reuters article suggests -- that many people who say they support a no-fly zone don't realize all that it entails. But just 2 weeks ago, large majorities didn't want a major US role in Ukraine. That changed radically and quickly.
And note there's almost zero partisan difference. These views are fully bipartisan. There was (and, to a lesser extent, still is) some heterodoxy and debate within right-wing media circles, but GOP officials themselves have been 100% pro-Ukraine along with Dems from the start.
Read 4 tweets
Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 6
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…
Read 7 tweets
Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 5
"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."

nytimes.com/2022/02/16/wor…
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:

Read 9 tweets
Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 4
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:

theintercept.com/2015/07/06/civ…
If you say employees of US media corporations propagandize, they'll vehemently - even earnestly - deny: "Nobody tells us what to say," etc.

But much propaganda is from non-coverage. Dramatizing Ukrainian victims while ignoring Yemeni/Pakistani/Afghan victims warps perceptions.
Read 5 tweets
Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 2
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. ImageImage
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 4 tweets
Glenn Greenwald Profile picture
Mar 1
All things considered, an amazing tweet from a Democratic foreign policy official. ImageImage
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.

nonzero.substack.com/p/in-defense-o…
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.

Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @ggreenwald has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @ggreenwald!

Read all threads by @ggreenwald

:(