I doubt the NYT had an attack of conscience. I think they're actually covering for an increasingly desperate Zelensky, who is getting the feeling that the sand is running out of the hourglass the West handed him and he's not entirely sure what happens after that.
What are the chances, really, that an errant anti-aircraft missile lands right in the middle of a crowd of people, precisely enough to kill 30 and wound dozens more? I'd say the chances are virtually zero.
Try this experiment: pull up Google Maps to a nearby city and drop the StreetView guy in a random place. Spin around in a circle. Are there 50 people visible within 50 meters? Even 100 meters? No way. Remember, I even spotted you a city, not just anywhere on the landscape.
So to be specific, Zelensky shoot a missile into a crowded marketplace. The plan is to blame the Russians for the mass casualty event and drum up "outrage" over the event so the West keeps the firehose of money and coke going to, uh, continue the brave fight against the merciless orcs.
The Neo-Imperialists don't like anything that isn't their idea, especially when they're getting strong-armed. They can't just out the guy, since then it would make them look like we've all been supporting a guy that would do what I just said he did.
Instead, they instruct The Newspaper of Mockingbird to say, "We have to be really honest here: it was all a big misunderstanding." Problem solved.
And the plan worked, didn't it? Conspiracy theorists bit down on it harder than normies.
I never said I believe the part about it being an accident. one does not accidentally fire a missile into a crowded market away from the war zone.
it just seems telling that the fucking New York Times is reporting it when this goes against their narrative. it seems possible there might be a narrative shift coming down the pipeline where NATO is done selling weapons to Ukraine and needs Zelensky to be the fall guy when the country crumbles.
The thing I'm really curious to see play out is whether or not they actually let Big Z become a martyr for whatever cause they decide to say he died for.
I mean, with their previous scumbags they arranged an exit because they needed to convince future scumbags to go along with them. This time sure seems different for a number of reasons. For example, Saddam seems like a fine fellow compared to Zelensky.
Average Ukrainians will want him dead for wrecking their country. Servicemen will want him dead for allowing the slaughter of their comrades. Neo-Nazis will want him dead for those reasons and not killing all the Russians and being a Jew. Who wants to deprive all these folks?
If I was him, I'd have faked my death a while ago, but I think as an actor he became addicted to being the center of world attention. And addicted to coke. But Jesus, Vlod, you can get coke anywhere.
Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center. Its always a hail Mary effort to rally the troops by hitting themselves and blaming the enemy. These playbooks get very old very fast in the information age.
NYT is Mainstream Media and I thought that they always lie?
They definitely lied that Ukrainian authorities did that by accident. They kill citizens of Ukraine on purpose for a long time, and do it very actively since 2014.
NYT is well-known as a direct mouthpiece of CIA/DeepState, so CIA/DeepState trying to whitewash Ukrainian authorities in that piece of damage control.
Every news outlet has an agenda that they push. It's not that the MSM always lies, it's that they lie when it's convenient, omit things that aren't convenience, and blast out minor things that help their narrative.
The narrative from The New York Times has always been that we, the enlightened United States, need to help Ukraine fight for its "freedom". So the fact that they would report this, which is at the very best a major embarrassment for Zelensky, but more likely a ploy by the Ukrainian forces to commit a terrorist attack on their own people to drum up support, signals a narrative shift within the New York Times.
Whenever the major propaganda outlets shift their narrative, it is worth paying attention.
I doubt the NYT had an attack of conscience. I think they're actually covering for an increasingly desperate Zelensky, who is getting the feeling that the sand is running out of the hourglass the West handed him and he's not entirely sure what happens after that.
What are the chances, really, that an errant anti-aircraft missile lands right in the middle of a crowd of people, precisely enough to kill 30 and wound dozens more? I'd say the chances are virtually zero.
Try this experiment: pull up Google Maps to a nearby city and drop the StreetView guy in a random place. Spin around in a circle. Are there 50 people visible within 50 meters? Even 100 meters? No way. Remember, I even spotted you a city, not just anywhere on the landscape.
So to be specific, Zelensky shoot a missile into a crowded marketplace. The plan is to blame the Russians for the mass casualty event and drum up "outrage" over the event so the West keeps the firehose of money and coke going to, uh, continue the brave fight against the merciless orcs.
The Neo-Imperialists don't like anything that isn't their idea, especially when they're getting strong-armed. They can't just out the guy, since then it would make them look like we've all been supporting a guy that would do what I just said he did.
Instead, they instruct The Newspaper of Mockingbird to say, "We have to be really honest here: it was all a big misunderstanding." Problem solved.
And the plan worked, didn't it? Conspiracy theorists bit down on it harder than normies.
I never said I believe the part about it being an accident. one does not accidentally fire a missile into a crowded market away from the war zone.
it just seems telling that the fucking New York Times is reporting it when this goes against their narrative. it seems possible there might be a narrative shift coming down the pipeline where NATO is done selling weapons to Ukraine and needs Zelensky to be the fall guy when the country crumbles.
The thing I'm really curious to see play out is whether or not they actually let Big Z become a martyr for whatever cause they decide to say he died for.
I mean, with their previous scumbags they arranged an exit because they needed to convince future scumbags to go along with them. This time sure seems different for a number of reasons. For example, Saddam seems like a fine fellow compared to Zelensky.
Average Ukrainians will want him dead for wrecking their country. Servicemen will want him dead for allowing the slaughter of their comrades. Neo-Nazis will want him dead for those reasons and not killing all the Russians and being a Jew. Who wants to deprive all these folks?
If I was him, I'd have faked my death a while ago, but I think as an actor he became addicted to being the center of world attention. And addicted to coke. But Jesus, Vlod, you can get coke anywhere.
Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center. Its always a hail Mary effort to rally the troops by hitting themselves and blaming the enemy. These playbooks get very old very fast in the information age.
the tactics indeed get old for those who are paying attention. good thing paying attention is taboo these days
NYT is Mainstream Media and I thought that they always lie?
So, is this proof that Russia did it?
They definitely lied that Ukrainian authorities did that by accident. They kill citizens of Ukraine on purpose for a long time, and do it very actively since 2014.
NYT is well-known as a direct mouthpiece of CIA/DeepState, so CIA/DeepState trying to whitewash Ukrainian authorities in that piece of damage control.
Every news outlet has an agenda that they push. It's not that the MSM always lies, it's that they lie when it's convenient, omit things that aren't convenience, and blast out minor things that help their narrative.
The narrative from The New York Times has always been that we, the enlightened United States, need to help Ukraine fight for its "freedom". So the fact that they would report this, which is at the very best a major embarrassment for Zelensky, but more likely a ploy by the Ukrainian forces to commit a terrorist attack on their own people to drum up support, signals a narrative shift within the New York Times.
Whenever the major propaganda outlets shift their narrative, it is worth paying attention.