Ukraine Crisis

way 2 go

Well-known member

way 2 go

Well-known member

Consistent with other mendacious corporate media takes, the propagandistic New York Times ran a story yesterday labeling Russia’s victory in Bakhmut as only a “Pyrrhic victory,” meaning a costly win that accomplished nothing.

The long article quotes lots of armchair military experts explaining how useless Bakhmut was, even as a symbol of anything. It really makes you wonder what those idiotic Russians have been thinking. Then, only late in the article, in the second-to-last paragraph, the Times finally gets around to offering the explanation for the battle from the actual source — the decision maker, the chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Zelensky:

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has long said that voluntarily ceding any territory, even for tactical gain, would be unconscionable given the abuses that Russian forces have perpetrated against civilians in occupied territories.​

But this deceptive retconning completely ignores everything Zelensky previously said, about how critical Bakhmut was, and how the Eastern Ukrainian city had to be held “at all costs,” lest it become a strategic launching pad for the Russians to win the entire war.

Here is just one headline CNN ran — only two months ago in March, straight from the source, Zelensky:

Needless to say, there’s no mention of the open road in yesterday’s Times article. And here’s another one, less than a month ago, which ran in the (obviously) Pro-Ukraine Kyiv Post, also direct from the source, Zelensky:

The New York Times thinks its readers are so dumb they can’t remember that the story was the exact opposite only a few weeks ago. In April, Bakhmut was critically important, but a few weeks later in May — after the Russians won — it suddenly became strategically meaningless.