Ah yes, The Telegraph, a famous pro Russian publication. Incidentally, Moscow Times is a publication owned by a Dutch magnate and actually blocked in Russia currently. 😂
To be fair, the Telegraph is right wing, pro uberrich and not very liberal and Putin is pretty auth/right/pro oligarchy as leaders go. There’s an awful lot of Russian money in London.
I would definitely trust Reuters over the Torygraph in matters of fact and bias, but note that the Moscow Times and Reuters are reporting quotes rather than facts, whereas the others are reporting opinions as facts.
Telegraph is one of the most rabidly pro NATO publications out there, I don’t think it can be accused of being pro Russian in any way. I think the facts are that in over 50 days, Ukraine failed to reach the first line of Russian defences. The original plan before it started was that Ukraine was supposed to make a quick breakthrough in the first day, and such a rapid breakthrough was deemed critical for a successful offensive. What we’re seeing now is that fighting has largely reverted to artillery warfare where Russia has a massive advantage.
At this point it’s becoming increasingly clear that things aren’t going well for Ukraine, and I think the future prospects are really grim. Which brings the question of why the west is so invested in keeping this war going.
Because the Eastern European countries see no reason that Putin would stop at Ukraine. NATO countries would far, far rather fund and supply war in Ukraine than fight war in Europe.
Guess which outlet is not under Russian influence.
Ah yes, The Telegraph, a famous pro Russian publication. Incidentally, Moscow Times is a publication owned by a Dutch magnate and actually blocked in Russia currently. 😂
To be fair, the Telegraph is right wing, pro uberrich and not very liberal and Putin is pretty auth/right/pro oligarchy as leaders go. There’s an awful lot of Russian money in London.
I would definitely trust Reuters over the Torygraph in matters of fact and bias, but note that the Moscow Times and Reuters are reporting quotes rather than facts, whereas the others are reporting opinions as facts.
Telegraph is one of the most rabidly pro NATO publications out there, I don’t think it can be accused of being pro Russian in any way. I think the facts are that in over 50 days, Ukraine failed to reach the first line of Russian defences. The original plan before it started was that Ukraine was supposed to make a quick breakthrough in the first day, and such a rapid breakthrough was deemed critical for a successful offensive. What we’re seeing now is that fighting has largely reverted to artillery warfare where Russia has a massive advantage.
It’s almost as if “we will quickly win this war with our cunning rapid offensive” keeps turning into “this long and bitter war is costing us deeply”.
At this point it’s becoming increasingly clear that things aren’t going well for Ukraine, and I think the future prospects are really grim. Which brings the question of why the west is so invested in keeping this war going.
Because the Eastern European countries see no reason that Putin would stop at Ukraine. NATO countries would far, far rather fund and supply war in Ukraine than fight war in Europe.