Yesterday, Ukrainian fighters besieged in the Azovstal steelworks surrendered to Russian forces, after a battle lasting almost three months. There’s no doubt this was a surrender: the Ukrainian fighters – who belong to the Azov regiment – were taken in buses to Russian-held territory in Eastern Ukraine (as shown above).
However, that’s not the impression you’d get scanning Western media outlets like the BBC, CNN and the New York Times. These outlets described what happened as an “evacuation” marking an “end to the combat mission”. Here are the headlines:
• ‘Mariupol: Hundreds of besieged Ukrainian soldiers evacuated’ – The BBC
• ‘Hundreds of Ukrainian troops evacuated from Mariupol steelworks after 82-day assault’ – The Guardian
• ‘Azovstal steelworks evacuated as Ukraine ends combat mission in Mariupol’ – The Times
• ‘The battle for Mariupol nears end as Ukraine declares ‘combat mission’ over’ – CNN
• ‘Ukraine ends bloody battle for Mariupol; Azovstal fighters evacuated’ – The Washington Post
• ‘Ukrainian authorities declare an end to the combat mission in Mariupol after weeks of Russian siege’ – The New York Times
In war, an “evacuation” is when you send boats, planes or vehicles to transport your own troops away from a hostile location. Dunkirk was an evacuation. It is not when the enemy transports your troops to a location under his control after those troops have surrendered. That’s called a “surrender”.
Despite reporting where the Ukrainian fighters were taken (Russian-held territory), some of the articles above don’t even use the word ‘surrender’. One is reminded of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf – nicknamed “Comical Ali” – who became known for his preposterous claims about U.S. losses during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Note: this has nothing to do with being ‘pro-Russia’. This is about journalists using language that actually corresponds with reality. Which prompts the question of why? Why are they going around describing things in transparently misleading terms?
I can think of two possible reasons. One is they don’t want to hurt Ukrainian morale. Perhaps Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines read Western media, or at least read what is written about Western media, and there was a concern that if they saw the headline ‘Mariupol Garrison Surrenders’, they might become dispirited.
The second possible reason is they don’t want Western audiences to believe that Ukraine is faltering, as they might then become less willing to support military aid or sanctions. (Note: I’m not saying that Ukraine is faltering – I have no idea who has the upper hand – only that news of a surrender might lead Western audiences to believe that it’s faltering.)
Of the two reasons, I’d suggest the first is more plausible. Maybe every outlet received the same press release with notes like: ‘Keep ‘surrender’ out of the headline. Use ‘evacuation’ instead.’ This is pure speculation, of course, but I don’t know how else to explain why so many outlets used such bizarre language.
Now, I could perhaps understand if it was British troops surrendering. But it wasn’t: the fighters who surrendered were Ukrainian – and from a regiment that just a few years ago Western media outlets were describing as “far-right” and even “neo-Nazi”.
Not only are the media giving us an inaccurate picture of the most serious armed conflict since the Cold War; they’re doing so despite the fact that it’s not even our troops fighting. They’re running interference for a foreign government – and regardless of how just that government’s cause may be, this puts us in very thorny territory.
We’re not dealing with celebrity gossip here. Western audiences have a right to be accurately informed about this war.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’ve just got banned from the Telegraph comments for pointing out their disgraceful science reporting and pointing to articles like this one. They simply cannot allow the truth.
Keep it up Igor.
In truth I’m quite pleased in a way, because continuing to pay them money (albeit at a reduced rate due to previous threats to leave on my part anyway) has been running counter to my principles. I’ve unsubscribed of course.
I was banned on a number of occasions at the DT but they relented when I appealled to the moderators. They eventually brought in a one strike and you’re out policy which has prevented me from commenting since, they must run checks on IP addresses as I opened a new account using a different email address but was banned within a week for something innocuous.
If you want a Qatari model of free speech, look no further than the DT BTL comments policy.
The Guardian and the BBC are even worse than the DT.
I was banned for commenting “below the line” years and years ago.
The Guardian- check
The Times- check
Youtube comments- check
Disqus- Check
Daily Mail- check
Twitter (pre and post Elon)- check
BBC-check
Daily Telegraph-check
Why?
I have very successfully defeated BBC HYS moderating censors multiple times by targeting certain subjects in a particular way – proved their bias which they have tacitly acknowledged time after time. Like many here, I consider these MSM organs are self evidently very corrupt, lying woke far left WEF acolytes and my experiences don’t move that dial one millimetre .
I paid £24 for my DT subscription this year. I let my old subscription lapse when they wanted to make it over £100 pa and after about 6 weeks they discounted by over 75%. I keep it going so I can comment BtL and – hopefully – influence others and point them towards sources of information.
I tread a fine line; they’ve not banned me yet.
They banned me for railing against Bill Gates giving them a few million quid during Covid. It is a badge of honour to banned by this rag.
We all seem to be operating in an echo chamber.
We all know what is causing the excess deaths.
It is not until the general public and the main stream media start to wake up to reality that anything will be done.
We are making very slow progress on that front.
Excellent interview in TCW today with Andrew Bridgen, entitled: “The Vaccine Cover Up is Rapidly Unravelling.” It opens “The elephant in the room of excess deaths is trumpeting louder and is stepping on the toes of Big Pharma in Parliament.”
Unfortunately when Andrew stands up in Parliament to make a valuable speech all the other MPs walk out.
This is the level of wilful ignorance we are dealing with.
Great work Mr Chudov
Now I remember why I prefer SQL
Although I do agree with your hypothesis, I have one, simple point to make… I think the official vaccination rates are total BS. In many European countries, individuals are all too used to beating the system and cutting each other private deals and arrangements. I suspect a statistically significant number of jabs went down the sink. And we’ll never, ever know how many. There just isn’t the data.
It’s things like this which remind me of the main message in Friedrich Duerrenmatt’s Das Verpsrechen – some things will never be solved, however much you want and need to solve them, and regardless of how much effort you put into solving them…
But the bastards need hanging for everything they did which we know for sure they did, nevertheless.
Yes, I noticed that former Communist countries had low or negative excess mortality (fewer deaths than expected in plain English!). I would agree that their lower jab rate is due to a history of “beating the system” and overall suspicion of authority and is probably even lower. Sweden’s negative excess mortality rate suggests that a combination of lockdowns and jab adverse effects has caused the excess mortality we’ve seen. In countries with both lockdowns and high high jab rates we see higher excess mortality. Simplistic using one country’s example I know.
They really sucked up the ‘get jabbed to save granny’. in Portugal. 95% jabbed!
Salazar managed to create what is in my honest opinion a very childlike and impressionable population.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-insane-experiment-behind-the-covid-pandemic-and-disease-x-part-three/
Paula Jardine’s excellent expose of the C1984 Scamdemic continues. Here’s part 3.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-joy-of-making-unexpected-new-friends/
Liz Hodgkinson at TCW with a message for all
ScepticsRealists.That’s all great, and I for one believe firmly that correlation does equal causation in this case.
Trouble is, even though he’s probably right on the money on this one, you can’t really present a non-scientist’s evaluation of re-hashed statistics as evidence for the danger of mRNA vaccines.
If a covid vaccine zealot asks me where I got this info, and I go “Igor Chudov’s Substack page”, they’ll say “Well why then were the NHS recommending them to everyone”? The answer to this, of course, is a long story involving the relationship between regulators, Big Pharma and the health services, with no independent assessment of efficacy and safety of vaccines.
But it’s at this point in the the discussion you might as well be conversing with a peanut.
Has anyone any information about how long after vaccination the adverse effects west off, if at all.
We continue to focus on excess deaths, however it would be good to not loose sight of other side-effects.
How many have had their health altered by mRNA products?
Probably an impossible question to answer, but analysis of NHS data or private insurance data may give us some clues?
The best way would be to be tested for spike protein markers, both viral and mRNA induced, Troponin, D Dimer and Ig3/4 levels. Snag is the NHS GPs will not routinely do this – how ironic that this medical “cohort” banged the gong for PCR whilst some banged the pans but they refuse en bloc to pull back the curtain to reveal, at least in part, their collective complicity. I bet their PI insurers have said to these Medics to the effect: “Don’t do these tests as it might invite claims against you – if you do you are no longer covered”