"Is it true that Bakhmut is now under complete control by Russian forces and only await[s] [Yevgeny] Prigozhin's and/or [Sergei] Shoigu's meeting with Putin to celebrate the biggest military victory of Russia's SMO? Where is General Zaluzhnyi? Why hasn't he been seen in current video since April 14? Prigozhin says he probably was killed by a Russian missile strike. It so, why hasn't the Times reported it? Is it true that Kiev fired 32 Patriot missiles into the air just a few days ago? Why? And why hasn't the Times reported it? Is it true that Russian missiles took out five Patriot launchers and one (of two) radars? Is it true that Russia has shot down seven of Britain's Storm Shadow missiles? If so, why haven't you reported it? More generally, has there been a single Wunderwaffe from the U.S. or Europe that Russia has not successfully countered? Is it true that on May 12 alone, 1725 Ukrainian soldier were killed on the Donbas front? If true, why didn't you report it? Are you aware that, as far as unsourced casualty counts from the Pentagon or the British MoD are concerned, historian Geoffrey Roberts recommends dividing those for Russia by ten and multiplying those for Ukraine by ten? Do you know that Retired Col. Douglas MacGregor claims that 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died during this SMO? Who's really running out of missiles, Russia or Ukraine? Why has Russia been able to launch so many missiles during the month of May? Ukraine seems to have run out of S-300s and Buks. If Kiev fired 32 Patriots on one night and the U.S. manufactures only 250 per year, how long can Kiev (or the U.S.) hold out? There were two gigantic explosions at major ammo/weapon's centers, one of them at Khmelnytski. Did those explosions obliterate newly delivered weapons and ammo from the West? Why don't you correct obviously contradictory Ukrainian claims about the number of missiles/drones shot down by Ukraine on any given day when there are separate contradictory claims by another spokesperson, for example, about power losses Ukraine suffered that day? Do you believe that Ukraine shot down any kinzhal missiles or simply fired at decoys? Do you believe that it is merely a coincidence that Zelensky has largely stayed out of his country ever since the failed drone assassination attempt on Putin in Moscow? Or is Zelensky a dead man walking?
I receive these reports from other sources and they stand in stark contrast to your largely pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Why and when should I believe you? You seem to cherry-pick Ukrainian military successes while overlooking the fact that, in general, Ukraine is getting clobbered
Walter C. Uhler
Talking about "clobbered," on the very day when I sent my queries to the New York Times, former CIA operative, Larry Johnson wrote: "The tempo of the war underway in Ukraine has shifted dramatically in Russia's favor and Ukraine has no answer. It is running out of artillery shells, tanks, aircraft and, most importantly, trained fighters who can execute large unit maneuvers" (sonar21.com)
One day later, Prigozhin -- the head of the Wagner forces engaged in the bulk of the fighting against the Ukrainians in Bakhmut -- proclaimed the city's capture. A day later, on May 21st, Russia's state media celebrated the capture of Bakhmut, easily the largest single victory by either side since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That same day the analyst at the Military Summary Channel provided a detailed list of losses suffered by Ukraine in Bakhmut during its 224 days of war, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense. Of the approximately 39,000 Ukrainian military casualties, some 23,000 were killed. Ukraine lost the equivalent of $7.85 billion in equipment, including some 100 vehicles, 2,700 drones and 23 planes. Predictably, given the ongoing propaganda war between Russia and the West, Russia's MOD didn't provide numbers for Russian casualties and equipment destroyed during the battle. But their losses must have been high, even if significantly lower than those suffered by Ukraine.
As of May 21st, the Times still had not responded to my letter of the 19th. Now, it must be said that the Times is only the foremost of American (and British) news media propagandists for Ukraine. Just like CNN began pimping for conservative viewers by broadcasting Donald Trump's outrageous town hall meeting, corporate America's decision makers in the news media have decided to go all in on the Biden administration's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Echoing the Soviet period when its news media marched in lockstep with official Soviet policy, CNN, MSNBC, ABC World News, NBC News, CBS News, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Bulwark, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, among others, routinely "report" what officials in the Biden administration say or what officials in the corrupt Zelensky regime feed them. The Post, The Atlantic, and The Bulwark feature the opinions of notorious neocons; you know, the people who championed the Bush/Cheney illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq and then the coup overturning Yanukovych's pro-Russia government in Ukraine. To their credit, most of the propagandists frequently assert that they cannot independently verify many of the pro-Ukrainian assertions by the Biden administration or the Zelensky regime. But, significantly, they seldom report Russian Ministry of Defense claims, even when similar caveats would allow such reporting. Today, the 21st, these propagandists are shamelessly falling all over themselves in an attempt to deny the Bakhmut has been captured.
One major exception to the frenzied group think that has captured the Western media is Harper's Magazine. Its June issue contains an article titled: "Why are we in Ukraine?" The answer to that question is found in the subtitle: "On the Dangers of American Hubris."
Ever since our colonial period, what became the United States has been populated by braggarts. From John Winthrop's "city on a hill" to Lincoln's "the last best hope for earth," to Ronald Reagan's "last best hope for mankind," to Madeline Albright's "indispensable nation;" America's leaders have not been shy about extolling American exceptionalism. It's all a lie of course, given that it took the enslavement of Africans to provide free or cheap labor, as well as the murder or displacement of the Indians -- to steal their land -- in order to create the fabulous wealth that allowed American white supremacy to flourish and penetrate virtually all of our institutions. Thus, it wasn't an accident when the country's first naturalization act (of 1790) denied the possibility of citizenship to anyone except certain free white people. Granted, other people in other lands lie and create myths about their particular country's greatness, but the United States possesses the loudest megaphones.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
