The October 22 article in Vox, “Russia’s destroying infrastructure in Ukraine, and the consequences are dire” is a masterpiece of Western propaganda. Virtually everything in it is either incorrect, framed incorrectly, ignores history, and is slanted towards one side in this conflict. I haven’t decided if its young author was simply the naïve recipient of information from sources that have a stake in one side or whether she consciously set out to write propaganda to favor the side she wants to win. Since she is intelligent and has a classic elite education in journalism, I suspect it’s the latter.
Where to start? Let’s go to the beginning. Are the Russians about to blow up the Kakhovka hydro-electric dam on the Dnipro River? That makes no sense for a number of reasons: 1. The Russians occupy the dam. I don’t think they want to blow themselves up. 2. The dam provides much of the power for the land they occupy. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot? Just as with the destruction of the North stream pipeline the only one hurt would be Russia and its allies. 3. The people of the region are under Russian control and according to Russian legal decrees are now Russian. Even if they lose control of this area (not a given) it still remains part of Russia (at least in their minds).
According to Ms. Ioanes, “Attacks on critical infrastructure are part of the Russian playbook”. Actually, that’s an American/NATO tactic. It wouldn’t be surprising that she does not remember the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 (without UN approval). She was a middle schooler at the time. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants (especially thermal electric/heating plants), hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses, and the Chinese Embassy for good measure. The same tactics were used in Iraq as well. No, I’m not a Putin apologist. In fact, I was in Belgrade with the US Embassy during the runup to war. One can quickly check Google for hundreds of photos of bombed bridges, etc., In fact if the US thought this was a great tactic one should applaud Putin for delaying its use as long as he did until fortunes of war and pressure within his own government caused him to finally try this well used American strategy.
I should also point out that the bombing campaign in Serbia was condemned by Amnesty International who said NATO had violated international law by targeting areas where civilians were certain to be killed. In particular, the Amnesty report said the bombing of the RTS (main television studio) building by NATO "was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime". Human Rights Watch also condemned the attack. Those approbations did nothing to stop the NATO forces. It does however make the author’s words hypocritical (but she is certainly not alone in this). It’s a moral dilemma. Either its OK for all military forces to attack civilian infrastructure or it’s not. It can’t be good just for the side you favor.
Ms. Ioanes states “This tactic is creating a dire humanitarian crisis that could last for years”. While that is undoubtedly true, by highlighting this instance Ms. Ioanes exposes her racist world view. Apparently, the staving babies in Yemen (if you have a strong stomach, I suggest you Google that term) don’t bother her even though the catastrophic famine there is the result of our fist bumping Saudi ally to whom we sell billions of dollars in arms each year. Of course, there are other humanitarian catastrophes currently unfolding in Ethiopia and Sudan that get no sympathy from Vox and other western MSM sources because they don’t involve white people (I suppose?). Highlighting the suffering in Ukraine when other far worse situations exist exposes the real lack of a humanitarian spirit and clearly demonstrates the political foundations of her (and most of the West’s) attitude toward real human suffering.
I get it. The author wants to support her side in this conflict. The problem is that doing so under the thin guise of news reporting cheapens the value of the product. In the long run people understand they have been hoodwinked and are less likely to believe what the MSM produces even when its true. It is harmful for democracy when the public views the media as just another biased player in the game of politics. It also means scarce resources get misallocated. Funds that could substantially reduce starvation in the world get spent on wars of choice. This form of propaganda makes it more difficult for citizens to make informed decisions as to where their tax dollars and attention should be directed.