sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Chris Trotter assesses the strange scenario of RNZ's altered stories about Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Public Policy / opinion
Chris Trotter assesses the strange scenario of RNZ's altered stories about Russia's invasion of Ukraine
rnz

By Chris Trotter*

A tankie in the newsroom, who would have thought RNZ still harboured such vipers in its ideologically awakened bosom? A pretty well-placed viper, too, one can only assume, since there appears to have been no one over-seeing his or, (less plausibly) her output. An old-timer perhaps, someone clinging to the journalistic principle that reality is multi-faceted, and that what you see almost always depends upon where you stand. A powerful professional incentive – at least it used to be – to view all major news-stories from more than one perspective.

An excuse for transforming RNZ’s digital newsfeed into one’s own personal Samizdat?* Not at all. Whoever is responsible for treating Reuters reports on the Russo-Ukrainian War like the Ems Telegram† crossed a very clear line and will, undoubtedly, pay a high price for their editorial high-handedness.

And yet, if we strip away the high-emotion with which all communications from Russia and Ukraine are received, the edits of RNZ’s re-writer may be interpreted not only as a cri-de-cœur against the current “one-side-right, one-side-wrong” reporting of this particular news story, but also as a doomed appeal for the reinsertion of critical distance, nuance and balance to the journalistic enterprise.

To hear One News’s journalists dismiss the Russian re-writer’s claims as “Russian propaganda”, for example, is to gain some appreciation of the oppressive effect of a single, state-determined “line” asserted endlessly by the emoting mannequins “official” news-readers have become. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then New Zealand’s handling of the RNZ story must surely have brought a smile to Vladimir Putin’s lips. No critical distance, nuance or balance in Aotearoa – thank you very much.

Which is not to say that the altered Reuters report was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – it wasn’t. Indeed, the original Reuters version stands out for both its historical accuracy and its masterful compression of the dramatic events that overwhelmed Ukraine in 2014. From those sympathetic to the losers of 2014, however, the Reuters narrative is egregiously sparse.

Yes, it is true to say that “a pro-Russian president was toppled in Ukraine’s Maidan revolution”, but it is also true to say that the pro-Russian president had been democratically elected by the Ukrainian people. A great many Ukrainians – at the time – would have disputed hotly the claim that what happened in Kyiv’s Independence Square (the Maidan) was a “revolution”. Given the pivotal role played by the American Government in the events of 2014, their scepticism is entirely understandable. What happened in the Maidan fell well short of being a coup d’état, but neither was it a revolution – at least, not of the progressive kind. Clearly, RNZ’s re-writer felt the same.

By the same token, describing what happened in Crimea as an act of self-determination, confirmed by the results of a free and fair referendum, is the purest fantasy. In 2014, the Russian Federation seized Crimea from Ukraine, whose borders, it bears repeating endlessly, had been agreed – and guaranteed – by both the United States and the Russian Federation in 1991.

RNZ’s re-writer is on much stronger ground when he asserts that “the new pro-western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine”. Only the most one-eyed Ukraine supporters persist in denying the presence of extreme nationalists and/or fascists in the “revolutionary” government cobbled together following the elected president’s departure. This new government was, indeed, extremely hostile to the ethnic Russian majority of the Donbass region. Legislative measures to suppress Russian language and culture did take place – but so, too, did the repeal of the extremists’ legislation as democracy steadily reasserted itself across those parts of Ukraine not occupied by pro-Russian separatists.

Presumably, RNZ’s re-writer was determined to “correct” the sparse Reuters narrative because he wanted to remind his audience that the Russo-Ukrainian War did not explode suddenly out of a clear blue sky; and that the ultimate invasion was the culmination of an historical sequence with plenty of blame attachable to all sides.

To the extent that it is the duty of journalists to offer not merely description but explanation, the RNZ re-writer is correct. Ever since Russian armour rolled across the Ukrainian border on 24 February 2022, coverage of the conflict has been uniformly one-sided. At RNZ, TVNZ, Newshub, Stuff and NZME, distance, nuance and balance have been noticeable by their absence.

The problem which the RNZ re-writer must confront however (apart from the looming consequences of his repeated breaches of RNZ’s rules) is that the actions of Putin and his armed forces have obviated any and all obligation to explain the conflict. Ukraine is a sovereign nation whose borders are recognised not only by the United Nations but also (as noted earlier) by the Russian Federation. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of the UN Charter and international law. No matter how persuasive his geopolitical arguments may have been prior to 24 February 2022, what he has done to Ukraine since means that no one in the West now needs to answer them.

That said, this country is not a war with the Russian Federation. New Zealand soldiers are not on the front lines of the conflict. (Well, not officially, anyway.) Our Government has condemned Russia and imposed limited sanctions, but that should not require our mainstream news media to behave as if New Zealand is at war, and any attempt to offer critical distance, nuance and balance to their listeners, viewers and readers tantamount to treason.

History always presents us with multiple sides, and, inevitably, events as large as the Russo-Ukrainian War have multiple causes. It is not the recognition of complexity that is treacherous, but the idea that nothing needs to be explained. Describing the RNZ re-writer’s edits as “false” and dismissing them as “Russian propaganda” is not helpful to the Ukrainians, or to their indisputably just cause. Why? Because if simplistic slogans could lead us to support one side, then they can just as easily lead us to support another.

Learning all we can about the history of the Ukrainian people. Understanding the turbulent currents that have surged through their country since the fall of the Soviet Union. Identifying all the actors involved in the drama that began in the Maidan in 2014 – and the roles which those same actors are playing today. This is the knowledge that will help the friends and allies of Ukraine stay the course until victory is won, peace restored, and the rebuilding of the nation begun.

The RNZ re-writer may, indeed, be a friend of the Kremlin, but inasmuch as he has also been asserting the duties and responsibilities of a democratic news media, then he should also be included among those who shout Slava Ukraini! – Glory to Ukraine!

*Dissident political newsletters passed from hand-to-hand to evade the Soviet censors.

†Diplomatic communication, subtly altered and released to the press by the Prussian Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. Generally acknowledged to be the immediate cause of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

42 Comments

The joke is that the narrative RNZ is slinging night and day - is a falsehood.

Economic growth on a finite planet - with enough to go around for an unlimited all.

It's bollocks.

Every Morning Report, every Business section - even Kim Hill last Saturday, peddling if not horsepoo, then a totally unbalanced, unchallenged angle:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018893821/ste…   note the lack of challenge from her - same with the Greens' nonsense discussed this morning; unchallenged. RNZ are so swallowing of the economics belief-creed, they can't see what they can't see (and fiercely - but ineptly - defend themselves when challenged. One complaint I wrote, pointed out that this wasn't just about Climate Change - their rebuttal opined they do enough about Climate Change; cognitive capacity limited, methinks. But let's triple-tick the gender and ethnicity boxes; forget competence).

The incident reminds me of this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spy-Who-Tried-Stop-War/dp/0981576915 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_(film)

The reality is that we compete for resources, and that competition has been global for 200 years. One faction overthrew an elite, morphed rapidly to an autocracy, and was lambasted by the elite (Churchill advocated conflict with Russia - Arthur Ransome's biography is a fascinating read; he came back to England with Trotsky's secretary as his life-long partner) of the western world because it competed with them. No more, no less. Who is any culture to diss others? We benefit (conveniently removed) from slave-level repression and loading out trash on others - so we've concocted a more conscience-salving narrative for internal use - until it comes up against the harsh light of fact.

I hope RNZ learn from this - but I doubt they have what it takes, within, to do so.

 

Up
5

The role of the media is not to give every single raving luny an equal platform to share their thoughts on every issue. 

Up
1

NZ media have enough in house "raving luny's" [sic] of their own.

Up
0

But what did the RNZ re-writer even say that wasn't true?

The entire Ukraine war is a ridiculous propaganda piece with incredibly sparse coverage relative to any of the past wars. The usual leftist/liberal types who opposed the zionist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are totally silent on the brutality of this war. All sorts of information floats about on this subject, out in the ether, but it never makes its way back to us. Despite cellphones everywhere, the on the ground coverage of Ukraine compared to these previous wars is a paucity of reheated press releases as reported by legacy media.

The establishment media seems to think it can lie, manipulate and deceive the New Zealand public into winning this war, regardless of the facts on the ground.

The real schizophrenia of this Chris Trotter piece, condemning the writer who is outside the spectrum of acceptable (Tankie/Stalinist/Harder Marxist Leninist) while lamenting the dishonest, untrustworthy news coverage of the legacy media in NZ. Crying about treaties defiled when the legitimacy of who rules ukraine is no longer based on a veneer of law or diplomacy. 

Up
3

I don't read Trotter as condemning, at all. I think he's done a good job.

The problem is in inconvenient truths. That link I put up (to the Katharine Gun whistle-blow re Blair/Bush/Iraq) misses that we in the 'west', needed the oil that was under those folk; our consumption - lauded for growing exponentially - required us to commandeer that energy, inferring that others can't have it.

Russia is one of the big three, energy-wise, and globally there is no swing-production left. We in the west need that energy - whoever doesn't get it dies first (watch Germany - here's David Skilling on a recent thread here: 'From the unreliability of Deutsche Bahn, to airport delays and patchy internet, the under-investment in Germany’s core infrastructure was evident.').

The winners get to write the histories, and do the Bretton Woods thing. The losers...... don't.

Up
3

I don't read Trotter as condemning, at all. I think he's done a good job.

I agree, good job Chris. Too many make fast judgements and strong opinions on nothing but headlines today, and cannot be reasoned with due to the emotiveness slung at us by the likes of RNZ like dung from a chimp.

Up
3

Obviously you have trouble empathising with those being torn apart by Putin's attempted imperialist expansion. Here is a little real life from a person we know I posted elsewhere.

June 9

My wife has a friend with parents living in a village on the south bank of the Dnipro. Their house was flooded and they are sitting in a boat tethered to a tree with a cell phone , a dying battery and a bottle of water. Both in their 70s'. They are scared to move because dislodged mines have been killing people who try to move, especially at night. They expect the water to subside over the next 3 days. I'm not so sure. I hope someone can get to them soon.

June 11

Hi Crystal, yes they did survive. They were rescued by our friends cousin in a motor boat. They are on high ground with a group of people, but still no food. Ukrainian soldiers were evacuating some people so Russia imposed a curfew. The cousin was shot dead by Russians while rescuing other people later. Russians are shooting anyone helping with boats and not supporting any relief efforts. The water reached 3.5metres in their village. When the water first came through the noises of terrified animals and people was deafening. An hour and a half later, just the sound of turbulent water.

Think about people not sitting safely behind their keyboard.

 

 

Up
2

VM CT isn't necessarily criticising the reporter for what he said, but how he did it and the response it has garnered. Indeed CT has even inserted what can only be a compliment to the reporter for their efforts to garner 'some distance' and establish balance. 

However this has happened CT's own piece does show balance and a clear statement of the facts as well as can be determined.

Up
1

There is no way he could have published any neutral pieces on the war at all in any case through the editors of these newspapers. RNZ is no different to Stuff in how ridiculously lazy, bias and propagandistic it is, but they hide it a bit more behind their veneer of government responsibility.

When are they ever going to publish say, why Russia was motivated to invade Ukraine. John Mearsheimer has fully explored this in numerous lectures, but that will never be given the light of day.

Up
5

Why was Russia motivated to invade another country and butcher their citizens Vonny? Other than imperialist expansionism I mean? Perhaps Ukraine is sick of Kremlin mafia asset stripping their country and nothing they can do about it? Exit Yanukovych.

The number one concern among Ukrainians at elections is corruption and they have tried to remedy that by changing governments. Unlike in Russia, where citizens have outsourced their political freedom to criminals and turn a blind eye while dissenting voices fall from windows, or get a visit from Polonium wielding thugs.

Have any of you pro fascist Russian supporters ever bothered to learn anything about Russia? Putin's parallels with Hitler's rhetoric over liberating German speakers in the Sudetenland and Poland ring loud! Perhaps England will invade us with the rise in the use of Maori language to protect English speakers? What do you think?

Up
2

The appropriate way to view this is a civil war that was waiting on ice after the breakup of the USSR. The American empire prevented it going hot, but these issues have been frozen for a long time.

There are many, many causes of the problem, but the view of a nation (root word is natal, as in people born of the same wombs) as unified by ethnicity. I think the claims of both Putin and Hitler were and are legitimate, the question is which side has the power to settle the question. It is now a question of arms and arms will decide it.

And since when was it 'butchering' their citizens? Ukraine has mass conscription, forced service and a totalitarian state with immense corruption issues. When the Ukrainians blew up that dam, drowning their own occupied citizens, is it to liberate them?

The whole narrative we are given is utter ridiculous, any reading of other sources shows this is the case.

Up
2

Front up with your other sources then. Lets have a look? Ukraine is corrupt. Russia is more corrupt. Ukraine is sick of its corruption. Russia embraces and spreads it. 

Up
1

So tell us more about how it was the Ukrainians that blew up the dam. 

Up
1

I'm guessing Vonny has a direct line to the Kremlin. He seems to know a lot about alternative reality. 

 Russian state TV "Lets bomb the dams". Beamed into primetime Russian living rooms. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEB1DGuddB8&t=83s&ab_channel=RussianMed…

Video of Russian state TV saying, "lets blow up more dams" 

 https://twitter.com/NatalkaKyiv/status/1666674811148312579

There is a sucker, or a troll born every minute. Vonny has had his minute.

Up
0

I have no idea who blew up the dam, however those sources were a little underwhelming.  The second link was someone suggesting a strike on another dam in retaliation for the damage done to the Nova Kakhovka dam (in Russia occupied Kherson).  I checked the subtitles and he never says ‘lets blow up more dams’.  The first clip had a presenter lamenting that Russia was hitting targets that were generally military targets.  He suggests infrastructure such as power plants, dams and railways should be targeted because they are being used by the Kyiv regime.  However this is hardly a smoking gun, he doesn’t appear to be military he just wants more of a hardline approach to the war.

Up
2

Not really a thinker huh? What are Russians doing in Ukraine anyway? They discuss the best infrastructure to destroy on state TV and you view this as normal behaviour from a supposedly intelligent life form? Which state shall we nuke today for supporting the country we are destroying? This example of the best attributes of humanity is beamed exclusively into the living rooms of the citizenry in a constant stream. Underwhelmed? Nothing gets presented on state TV, without first being stamped by the ministry of truth. 

Up
0

The Russians could have annihilated all the power grid, water sanitation and so on at the start of the war. The Americans always do this in their wars of aggression against whatever victim. The real reason they didn't do this, was because they wanted to occupy these nations, not to destroy them.

Up
1

The argument that it was Ukraine is based solely on the fact that it was done by them so Russia would get the blame ie done for propaganda purposes only because the only one to physically benefit from blowing up the dam is Russia of course.

Could this be true, yes but 1) highly unlikely as on balance it destroys much-needed Ukarian infrastructure that they would have got back in a matter of weeks anyway.

And 2) the Geopolitical expert Peter Zeihan is saying that the explosion happened in the generator rooms and for that to happen at least a truckload of explosives would have had to be driven by someone through Russia-held territory into the dam area and through the Dam security and somehow into the generator room. IE he is saying that is easy for the Russias to do but impossible for the Ukrainians to do.

Up
0

Why on earth would the Russians blow up a Dam which they occupy, which provides huge quantities of water to their own citizens (in Crimea in particular)?

It makes literally zero sense. The real objective seems to be depriving Crimea of its primary water source while the land connection over the Azov sea is ruined (because the Ukrainian intelligence services used an immense truck bomb to destroy the bridge).

It is as ridiculous as the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline, which was originally blamed on Russia (but again, why blow up your own infrastructure?) and is now blamed on the Ukrainians (Who would not have had the expertise to do so)

Up
0

I have heard many justifications of why Russia invaded Ukraine. So far I have not heard anything that stood up to scrutiny. Why does Mearsheimer say it was? 

No matter how you look at it or try to rationalise it, a crime committed 50 or 100 years ago cannot be corrected by committing a new crime today.

Up
1

All justifications I have heard for Russia's invasion amount to preserving the self interests of those that robbed the nation when communism collapsed.

Up
0

Who would that be? The oligarchs who used foreign capital to purchase enormous stakes in these newly sold companies, trading the shares which had been distributed to all the citizens of these post-soviet states for cash at ridiculous discounts? 

The same ones who fund and back the current Ukrainian regime? Where do you get this narrative? What was the crossover between the Russian Oligarchs, many of whom have been robbed of their power and money by the Putin government, and the Ukrainian Oligarchs? You don't seem to know anything about this subject.

Up
2

I would list the names, but it appears you know everything. Russian elites under communism knew well how the capitalist system worked, while much of the rest of the population were kept ignorant with wall to wall communist utopia fairytales, even as the system collapsed around them. Russian citizens had no idea of the value of those "distributions". Many were traded for a bottle of vodka. 

Russian oligarchs were allowed to enjoy fantastic riches because they were looking after little Vlads financial empire. When the little KGB mans paper army folded, he called in his assets, which the oligarchs were looking after, anyone complaining fell out the nearest window. Vlad is a secretive little guy. Russians have no idea how he has fleeced the state of it's wealth. 

You haven't explained why you back Russia butchering Ukraine's population?

Up
0

Anybody (Russian or Ukraine) being displaced or worse by this conflict has my sympathies.  Imho there are very few ‘good guys’ in this Ukraine war. Overthrowing the 2014 Ukrainian govt with a ‘revolution’ and installing a western friendly govt on the border of Russia was a calculated move by Nuland & Co to create mayhem.  Anybody thinking that Russia should happily accept this situation needs to be realistic – which doesn’t justify Russia’s actions either.

Up
2

The RNZ re-editor did his alterations under the name of Reuters journalist not a local NZ journalist who would have been more likely to notice and object to the re-interpretting of their writing. So concealing the re-edits seems to part of the re-editors game-plan. Which is pretty underhanded...

Up
1

Exactly right Mr Trotter.

".........And yet, if we strip away the high-emotion with which all communications from Russia and Ukraine are received, the edits of RNZ’s re-writer may be interpreted not only as a cri-de-cœur against the current “one-side-right, one-side-wrong” reporting of this particular news story, but also as a doomed appeal for the reinsertion of critical distance, nuance and balance to the journalistic enterprise......"

Up
5

But one side is right and one is wrong. All that needs to happen is for little Vlad to order his troops out and provide war reparations. Simple. 

Up
2

Sigh Palmtree.  

Up
5

Simple concepts too hard to grasp for you KH?

Up
1

You and I are usually on the same page, but I think you need to ask:

Is this a simple situation? The answer is no.

So why attempt to apply a simple narrative?

These things are never simple, and nobody is 100% pure, or 100% dirty. We have vilified the USSR and its subsequent iterations, from the 1920s on. McCarthy-era America (read: Anderson's Confessions of a Muckraker) kicked it along a lot, echoed here during the Holyoake years. Propaganda can take other forms; Uris' Exodus; Rambo; James Bond all have underlying messages). But what happened in Russia stemmed from a repressive Elite -exactly the same as the French Revolution. What has happened in that interface-area thereafter, is a series of resource-grabs (including strategic real-estate - the Kurst tank-battle was in modern Ukraine) in an increasingly over-populated arena (note that overpopulation is related to rates of consumption, not sheer numbers). Lebensraum fur Herrenvolk is little traversed by our public discourse these days - we won and wrote the histories - but it is pertinent. This is the first of what will probably be a series of conflicts over who gets what. Everyone will vilify the other side.

Is Putin a psychopath? Probably. Is Victoria Nuland? Probably. Mostly you don't climb over enough people to get to the top in one lifetime, without being one. So are most western leaders - including in my opinion, the Biden clan, the Bush clan.... The latter kept us fuelled; the former didn't; we need to be be very careful making sure that doesn't skew our appraisals....

Try reading The Dark Side of Camelot, The Great War for Civilisation, and Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

Up
2

Disagree. This is a simple situation. Aggressor state. Victim state. Are you conflicted about the rights and wrongs of attacking and killing people?  I can see it as simple because I know Russia from the inside. It's like a poor mans US, without the freedom to protest. 

This civilisation needs a drastic change of direction. The question is, which system do you believe offers a better prospect for for change? One where you are assassinated for stepping out of line? I am under no illusions what the US is like, along with the many little US's around the planet. 

What do you think would happen to Ukrainians that resisted Russia's invasion, should western support fade?

You can tell a lot about a man by his friends. Assad, Un, Khamenei.

Ukraine has the right to self determination. The fact they are fighting to the death should tell you something about how they regard their thug of a neighbour. Whataboutism is a refusal to face reality. Its like recycling the best of climate denial. But I have a scientist that says the Earth is flat.

Ukraine Nazis? What about Russian Nazis? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/putin-nazi-pretext-russia-war-ukr…

Most here seem unable to give the humans Russia is killing a human face.

That's really disturbing! 

Russia hoped to freeze to death Ukraine's vulnerable by destroying infrastructure. It blew up a massive dam that has killed countless civilians. Ecocide on a massive scale. Russia has shot rescuers, including the cousin of a family friend. 

Up
2

+1. It's really simple: people always have the right to live in peace & to defend themselves against warmongering invaders.

Up
0

Fascinating how easily you sideline the millions of Russians murdered by Lenin, Stalin and the successors by their bully boys in the KGB, all in the name of holding onto power and privilege while they fed the masses a bullshit line of a Bolshevik heaven where everyone was 'equal'. There is nothining in the recent Russian/Soviet history that comes even close to being able to support and justify the current invasion of Ukraine. And whether they were state supported or not Nuland and co could be challenged on their actions, but i suggest it is undeniable that the Ukrainian regime of the time was corrupt and the revolution the CT refers to could not have happened if there were not serious questions with respect to the regimes legitimacy.

Up
0

The first assumption that should be made from any "special operation" news released from the Russian side, is that it's a lie. Mr Trotter probably needs to go further back in history, to the mass murders of ethnic Ukrainians undertaken by the Russian/Soviet empires and the subsequent Russification of the territory now being liberated by a horde of thieves, rapists and murderers. Russia is awash with nationalist and fascists. No talk about "denazifying" the nasty little empire builders hiding behind their nuclear threats.

https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/the-history-of-the-holodomor/

Up
1

When did you learn this "history" about Ukraine? Was it after the 2022 war started?

This is all revisionist history that was not at all how these events were understood in the western version of this history. For example the Soviet Famine was is taught as an example of the evils for forced collectivisation (resulting in mismanagement). Old version of wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%…

Ukraine was a relativity corrupt failing state long before the war, there is no objective reason to trust them more than Russia.

Up
2

Oh pleeze! I wonder if Ukraine would have been so corrupted if it hadn't been under the yoke of kremlin imposed communism? We'll never know.

I suspect I know first more about Russia and Ukraine first hand than you. I've been married to Russia for 25 years! 

Cronyism and its larger friend corruption are how the communist regime ran. After the collapse the same systems continue, without the pretext of equal squalor.

I doubt if any sane person would want similar imposed by a violent neighbour?  

I think little Vlad fancies himself more a "Peter the Great" than "Joseph Stalin", as he kills people to expand his empire. 

Trust? Objectively? Lies? The Kremlin specialises in lies. Virtually invented the post truth era. 

https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/troll-factory/

Up
0

Your "Russia and Ukraine" "history" don't reconcile. Russia does not believe the Holodomor was a genocide.

Ukraine would not exist if not for the USSR. It would still be fighting for independence from one or more of its neighbors. If you want to call Stalin Russian then Ukraine is Russian too.

Up
2

> Russia does not believe the Holodomor was a genocide.

I didn't know Russia had beliefs.  I thought it was a country made up of many people with many beliefs.  Don't mistake Putins re-glorification of Soviet history, banning Russian organisations like Memorial that attempt to remember its victims, as meaning all Russians think the same.

Up
0

Palmtree is using terms from 2022 war propaganda. I see no evidence he has any knowledge beyond that despite his rant. I wrote a simplistic non-serious "shitpost" in response to confirm this. Don't go looking for serious commentary in it.

Up
0

Thompson's comments (RNZ midday) suggest what I've long assumed from RNZs' content; he's not up to the job.

He may well have been a fine reporter - I'd have to be convinced he'd been a fine journalist, that's a higher bar - but his outfit needs a complete appraisal; gloves-off ground-up. What he's trying to do is get past this as fast as possible; understandable but not in our best interests, long-term.

 

Up
0

good article, thank you.

Up
2

No fan of Chris Trotter but he does a good job here. Switched off RNZ years ago. People who listen or read MSM these days tend to get only one side of the story. One has to go to AMS to get the other side of the story. Then one can form an opinion as to who is right and who is wrong. 

Up
2