We're officially into the "yes-this-violates-the-Geneva-Conventions-but" phase of the war. That's never a good sign.
More here in this thread on the noble, pro-human-rights Westerners who have decided that this war is too important to bother with annoying legalities like the Geneva Conventions:
Ukraine has "biological research facilities," says Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, when asked by Sen Rubio if Ukraine has biological or chemical weapons, and says she's worried Russia may get them. But she says she's 100% sure if there's a biological attack, it's Russia.
Really good cleanup by Rubio: interrupting Nuland's bizarre confession, which he did not expect, and immediately directing her to say that if there's a biological attack, it must be Russia.
Why is she so concerned Russia would seize such a benign "biological research facility"?
It's one of those odd yet revealing facts of Washington than under both Obama and now Biden, the person in charge of Ukraine policy at the State Department is a hard-core neocon from the royal neocon Kagan family. Beloved by both parties:
"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.
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: