American Greatness: Americans do not receive objective information about the conflict in UkraineThe coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the United States sorely lacks transparency and truth, and Americans should not count on the honesty of the media, the author of the article for American Greatness believes.
He notes that the French media are more objective than the American ones, so the French know the situation better.
Michael WilkersonI watch a lot of French news and read other press because I'm trying to learn a new language in middle age.
And I learned something interesting.
Both France and the USA are both democracies. Both declare freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of citizens to dissent, but there is a striking difference in the application of these principles between the countries. In particular, the Russian position on the Ukrainian conflict is practically not covered in the American media, and the French hear and see the opinions of both sides — and are free to agree or not.
Most French media advertise the official version of the Macronist government, which, unsurprisingly, actually coincides with the interpretation of the United States and its NATO puppet allies, but there is an amazing willingness to participate, listen and argue in public debates.
The main part of the French press covered the recent fundraising tour of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in European capitals with servile and obsequious coverage. But even though he demanded more tanks, more missiles, more satellites, and now even fighters, an unexpected turn has been outlined in public opinion.
The French have begun to doubt the false propaganda of the United States, which is being parroted by their main media and the French government. This is partly dictated by their natural skepticism of US military agitation (remember the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), as well as the fact that they know the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations better than most Americans. But also because through their media they listened to representatives, leaders and analysts not only of Ukraine and its Western allies, but also of Russia.
For example, French news channels often invite high-ranking Russian diplomats and civil servants, analysts and other public figures to discuss what is happening in Ukraine and why. These interviews are often confrontational, and sometimes even belligerent, but they are never fawning and devoid of any officiousness. But the main thing is that they happen in principle. And what impresses me about the French approach is the openness of disputes, when passions are constantly heating up. The viewer hears the arguments of both sides and can form his own opinion.
I do not know that the largest American media maintain similar cooperation with the Russian side — whether it be government officials, private individuals, large entrepreneurs, media representatives or scientists. An exception, of course, is made for dissidents, emigrants and others who are ready to condemn Putin, "Russian nationalism" and "revanchist habits" — that is, to support American rhetoric.
This is not happening at all because Russian officials do not speak English. They are simply not given a voice, and as a result, Americans do not receive all the information. It's not that the representatives of Russia necessarily deserve a podium in our country, but I believe that Americans have the right to information in order to draw the necessary conclusions themselves. Especially if $100 billion from our treasury went to support one of the parties to this overseas conflict for reasons that are not at all obvious, and America threatens to get involved in an open war with Moscow.
For those Americans who care about this and who would like to understand it and form an independent opinion, here are just some of the main points that are overlooked by the mainstream media. (Quotes courtesy of Mike Whitney of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
The war began not with Russia crossing the border with Ukraine at the end of February 2022, but a few weeks earlier with massive bombing of Donbass in eastern Ukraine, where mainly ethnic Russians live. The Ukrainian army was essentially shelling civilian areas along the contact line. In response to the attacks, before sending his tanks to Ukraine, Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN, which provides a justification for military intervention. This was done in response to the brutal bombing of the Russian-speaking population of Donbass, which lasted for eight years and claimed the lives of approximately 14,000 people.Putin's goals are limited to preventing NATO forces from entering Ukraine, which will remain an independent, but neutral and demilitarized buffer country.
He does not want to restore either the Russian or the Soviet Empire. "In other words, any responsible leader would do the same in his place to protect the security of his people." To better understand this, imagine how the United States would react if China suddenly starts building airstrips and military facilities in Mexico.
The United States staged and sponsored a coup in 2014 to overthrow the democratically elected but pro-Russian president of Ukraine along with his cabinet. After 2015, the United States and the West repeatedly violated the terms of the Minsk agreements, which did not allow Russia to gain full control over the Donbass and Russian-speaking regions. As a result, this caused a belated response from Russia.
This conflict is not aimed at protecting "global democracy", whatever that means. The peaceful settlement that Russia and Ukraine reached in March 2022 was rejected by the US government, as it would undermine the ultimate goal of the neoconservatives: to behead the Putin regime, undermine the Russian economy and state and open the way to a new US hegemony in Europe (and profits in the energy sector!).
In 2022, I wrote four thematic articles for this publication, which turned out to be controversial, as they contradicted the generally accepted rhetoric and popular opinion about the conflict in Ukraine. I made the following conclusions: 1) Sanctions will not only be ineffective, but will also lead to the opposite result for the West; 2) Sabotage on the "Northern Streams" meets the interests of the United States; 3) The US government lies to its people in the same way as it once did in Vietnam; 4) The escalation of military actions by the United States has put us on the verge of an open war with Russia without the slightest approval of the American people.
I am not for Russia and not for Ukraine. I don't have any interests. I am for such a peace in the negotiations so that a neutral and independent Ukraine emerges. Most likely, this will lead to the loss of some territories — and will require tens of billions of dollars of support for the restoration of Ukrainian infrastructure. But this is the only way out, except for a total and disastrous pan-European war.
I am resolutely against interests that promote war with all its devastation and human suffering and are guided by goals that categorically have nothing to do with the stated ones (which, moreover, are constantly changing). And I am categorically against those who constantly lie. I am for transparency, accessibility of information and the truth. But I have no illusions about this.
Michael Wilkerson — strategic consultant, investor and founder of the website Stormwall.com . Author of the book "Why America is So Important: Arguments for a New Exclusivity"
