"If Kiev reaches a deal with rebels that they don't support, paramilitary fighters say they could potentially strike pro-Russian targets on their own -- or even turn on the government itself," the article stated.
The Post article -- like almost all of its coverage of Ukraine -- was laudatory about the Kiev forces fighting ethnic Russians in the east, but the newspaper did have to do some quick thinking to explain a photograph of a Swastika gracing an Azov brigade barracks. So, in the last three paragraphs of the story, Faiola reported: "One platoon leader, who called himself Kirt, conceded that the group's far right views had attracted about two dozen foreign fighters from around Europe.
"In one room, a recruit had emblazoned a swastika above his bed. But Kirt " dismissed questions of ideology, saying that the volunteers -- many of them still teenagers -- embrace symbols and espouse extremist notions as part of some kind of 'romantic' idea."
Despite these well-documented facts, the New York Times excised this reality from its article about the Azov battalion's defense of Mariupol last February. But isn't the role of Nazis newsworthy? In other contexts, the Times is quick to note and condemn any sign of a Nazi resurgence in Europe. However, in Ukraine, where neo-Nazis, such as Andriy Parubiy served as the coup regime's first national security chief and Nazi militias are at the center of regime's military operations, the Times goes silent on the subject.
Rather than fully inform its readers about a crisis that has the potential of becoming a nuclear showdown between the United States and Russia, the Times has chosen to simply be a fount of State Department propaganda, often terming any reference to Kiev's Nazi storm troopers to be "Russian propaganda." Now, however, a unanimous U.S. House of Representatives -- of all things -- has acknowledged the unpleasant truth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
