New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker may have checked in with his partner who was really stationed in Russia and is aware of what he’s talking about before writing an extremely simplistic part on Eastern Europe’s political affairs from the frontlines of Pennsylvania Ave.
This week, Baker joined the unpleasant media in disputing nearly every word President Trump has said just regarding the conflict in Ukraine, including his claim that Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, could have avoided it, and his portrayal of Zelensky as a despot.
” President Trump is rewriting the past of Russia’s war of its smaller neighbor”, Baker wrote on Wednesday. “Ukraine, in this edition, is not a sufferer but a monster. And Mr. Zelensky is never a latter-day Winston Churchill, but a ‘ tyrant without elections ‘ who apparently started the war himself and conned America into helping”. He continued, claiming that Trump had “falsely” accused Zelensky of starting the war and had engaged in a “revision” of the historic document that” seemed to be laying a pretext for withdrawing help for an alliance under attack.”
That obnoxious point that the media does, where they are required to have the final say on every debate while pretending to be a “fact-check”? This is more of that.
As get it if there is any “revision” in exposing the absurd levels of advertising that the Biden presidency and the media have spread in an effort to sell that battle to the American public. The majority of the citizens in power’s claims that it should be prolonged were lies. They said it was about “democracy” and “freedom” when it was in fact a long-standing regional debate. They said Ukraine had “win” while personally acknowledging that was difficult. They claimed that while the Ukrainian economy was fairly stable and also growing, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion had decimated it.
The more unpleasant sits relate to the origins of the conflict and who is to blame. Trump appears to really not care at this time, just like the rest of us, who are quickly becoming insane as a result of our involvement in the conflict. He wants to see an end and that’s all that counts. However, if Baker is going to write articles like” Mr. Zelensky did not talk the United States into giving him money,” to start a battle. He and his country were attacked”, therefore we’re going to have to keep correcting him using his own writer’s reporting.
It was another pounding beat of advertising that the battle was” Putin’s unwarranted war of aggression”, which is patently untrue. Baker’s colleague, Times Moscow Bureau Chief Anton Troianovski explained in an event of” The Daily” audio in March 2022 that prior to the invasion, Zelensky took several aggressive actions that were intended to emancipate Russia.
How’s what Troianovski said:
But what occurs is that Zelensky attacks a Ukrainian business tycoon named Viktor Medvedchuk just weeks after Biden is inaugurated. And that’s crucial because Medvedchuk is essentially the only remaining connection between Ukraine and the Kremlin. Putin is the grandfather of Medvedchuk’s child. Medvedchuk is the leader of a political group that is largely pro-Russian. He was running several TV channels that were pro-Russian, and early next year, Zelensky closes those TV programs, starts an exploration into Medvedchuk. Medvedchuk was placed under house arrest next May on suspicion of treachery. In fact, But Zelensky took all these very extreme actions, which evidently irritated Putin a lot and was likely one of the causes of the situation between Ukraine and Russia.
Baker may have led readers to think that Putin awoke one morning and said it appeared like a good day to start a war. That’s not what happened.
When Zelensky closed down those TV channels only after Biden’s opening, he added insult to injury by , tweeting , at the time, “Ukraine clearly supports freedom of speech. No advertising financed by the attacker state that undermines Ukraine , on its way to the]European Union ] and EuroAtlantic inclusion”. Zelensky was actually telling Putin that despite having a long history and, more importantly, having several people on both sides of their borders preferring a union of the two, their places wouldn’t have relations.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an empire created specifically to consolidate the United States and Western Europe in opposition to Russia, is another example. One of the last two places on Russia’s border that isn’t a member of NATO is Ukraine, which Russia has repeatedly claimed has exacerbated disturbed global connections. However, Troianovski claimed that Zelensky “became more forthright about wanting to join the NATO empire” after Joe Biden took office with empty hands for Ukraine.
The timetable is obvious. When Biden takes office, Zelensky feels pressured to attack a much bigger and more powerful nation because he thinks Ukraine will be protected by NATO ( other nations ‘ armies and money ), so Russia reacts, and we end up funding Ukraine’s defense.
As for Zelensky being a “dictator”, it’s not like he outlawed social opposition, shut down places of worship that had conventional ties to Russia, forced the closure of media outlets important of his presidency, and indefinitely suspended votes to maintain himself in power. Wait, let me re-check my information. Not head. He did all of that in a procedure known as “democracy and freedom” in continuous Washington.
When people like Peter Baker say that the reality has been “rewritten” history, what they really mean is that the advertising they prefer has failed.
