I always enjoy eyeballing various websites comments sections, and ZeroHedge is no exception, phew, the writers there absolutely eviscerate Trump for betraying them. I can tell you barely 6 months earlier they would have called me every name under the sun for daring insinuate he ever had machinations contrary to their hopes. I documented it anyway (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/politics-in-pictures-america-first) and these days those 'controversial' articles seem Captain Obvious now.
If anyone wishes to apologise to The Daily Beagle, they can mail an 'I'm sorry' cheque to...
I've almost entirely eliminated any Ukrainian government reporting from sources (except for 'from the horse's mouth' reporting) as I've found them to be an incredibly unreliable narrator (they had only one truthful report in the last year: reporting that Russia were using North Koreans).
The only sources I've found that give a glimmer of insight into Ukraine itself are primarily Russian-biased sources, and due to heavy handed censorship and the draft, a lot of the on-the-ground reporting from Ukraine via E.G. social media is heavily stifled. I estimate we only see 1% of what actually happens in Ukraine (ignoring big media stories).
The most reliable publication I've found for insights into Ukraine is Strana Today, but you will need to install a translator (Firefox has native support, I don't know about others). They are Russian-slanted but honestly their reporting is more towards neutral (it is less Russia Today and more like a local newspaper). I've learned more things about Ukraine from them than *any* other publication (and that includes front line reporting such as Intel Slava Z):
The others to consider are Intel Slava Z (heavily Russian bias but every now and then they show something of Ukraine itself, just be aware on rare occassions there's posts I've found to be entirely false, especially headline and quote attribution):
For actual front line reporting (Russian side), you want Patrick Lancaster. He's hosted in a number of places, but most surprisingly he's found on YouTube (if you want up-to-date reports though you'll have to visit other websites):
Russia Today are a very poor outlet for getting Ukrainian updates. They're often several days behind ongoing events, and the writing is heavily sanitised (it has very much a Western mainstream media feel to it, they won't criticise Zionism, for example). That said, they act as the 'official mouthpiece' for the Russian government, and if they've said it, you can be assured the Russian government have backed it, so you can glean insights on how the Russian government views Ukraine itself (which actually seems to change as the war goes on):
Unfortunately I haven't found anything that gives an accurate idea of the Ukrainian government's viewpoint. Kiyv Indepedent is the closest but it is overwhelmingly propaganda and doesn't even show their true face. To the point you will not learn anything you couldn't have already deduced (Russia bad, Ukraine good guy, Russia did terrible thing to Ukraine etc). One glance at the home page will make you realise how worthless it is for learning anything.
If you want a sobering insight into how little progress Russia are making into Ukraine currently, you want the primarily Western-bias/pro-Ukraine, Institute for the Study of War. They're an outlet covering progress in the war. Whilst it states relatively truthful facts, it works deception heavily via the use of omission (when the maps disappear, Russia is making progress, and when the maps re-appear, Russia has become stalled). They are a think tank and thus are financially incentivised towards pro-Western bias reporting:
All sources are, of course, bias (myself included) but I've attempted to signpost the type and nature of the bias. You'll come to realise the picture on the ground is very spotty and that is the Fog of War at work. My personal understandings come from sifting a handful of outlets that have proven useful insights and combing it with manual research and investigation to pick up additional details.
" Stuff to convince doubting or ignorant kiev ukrainians that all is well for Donbass ukrainians and that therefore most all they hear is lies."
Oh, it appears I misunderstood your request. I thought you were asking me for on-the-ground sources of what is actually happening in Ukraine, rather than looking for tips on how to sway people politically.
You might find some insights on how to win people over with the coverage in a much older (and admittedly dated) History on Ukraine and Russia series:
If you think it's too long, focus on Parts 2 and 3. Facts like Crimea voted to join Russia, the lack of any sort of mass exodus, the fact 16,000 "Ukrainian" troops defected to join the Russian military from Crimea are all rather telling facts that undercut the narrative. You should find the papertrail of Stephen Bandera telling but your big issue will be a lot of 'West Ukrainians' actually still support the Nazis and won't actually see that as a criticism they would care about. Maybe the East 'Ukrainians' do live in relative luxury but if ideology is the main driver, you won't be breaking through to any West Ukrainians.
Instead, you might want to focus on how terrible West Ukraine has become. The forced mobilisation, the centralisation of control of the media outlets, the rampant corruption (the rich can pay their way out, the poor cannot), people with lung cancer being sent to the front lines (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-quasi-direct-ukrainian-war).
Donbas reconstruction is a tricky one to cover because the war isn't over, and I consider those areas to be de facto war zones (they could still be droned, missiled, or bombed at any time), so I wouldn't call them as relatively safe. They might be safer than West Ukraine, but I'd never feel comfortable saying to a person it is entirely safe, not until the war is over and fighting ceases. I suppose the same could be said for any part of Russia, but I think you see my point.
"I see nothing there that is: " looking for tips on how to sway people politically."
Do you? How so? Please explain, enlighten me."
I quoted you verbatim:
"Stuff to convince doubting or ignorant kiev ukrainians"
To convince or to sway, same wording. I'm not sure my efforts are being interpreted in good faith here. Am I correct in presuming you're not a native English speaker? I think my words are being lost in translation.
"show them the truth"
If you don't think my own writings, articles, citations are truthful, then I'm not sure why you're asking me for proof to show them. Otherwise, why object, I provided other articles of relevance?
" unfortunately it does not address my need."
I fear you only have a specific definition of an answer you want to hear in mind, and will not entertain any other responses. Unfortunately I am not in the habit of appeasement. If you want your own answers outside of my own, then I suggest you engage in your own research. Nobody does anything for free.
"How long will the American and British public tolerate their Zionist overlords for, we wonder?"
Not until we run out of Doritos.
I always enjoy eyeballing various websites comments sections, and ZeroHedge is no exception, phew, the writers there absolutely eviscerate Trump for betraying them. I can tell you barely 6 months earlier they would have called me every name under the sun for daring insinuate he ever had machinations contrary to their hopes. I documented it anyway (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/politics-in-pictures-america-first) and these days those 'controversial' articles seem Captain Obvious now.
If anyone wishes to apologise to The Daily Beagle, they can mail an 'I'm sorry' cheque to...
After Biden was installed, I had stated the next selection would be the return of Trump, but to many surprised he will be the hammer, not the savior.
Doritos taste like mulch (sorry!)
I've almost entirely eliminated any Ukrainian government reporting from sources (except for 'from the horse's mouth' reporting) as I've found them to be an incredibly unreliable narrator (they had only one truthful report in the last year: reporting that Russia were using North Koreans).
The only sources I've found that give a glimmer of insight into Ukraine itself are primarily Russian-biased sources, and due to heavy handed censorship and the draft, a lot of the on-the-ground reporting from Ukraine via E.G. social media is heavily stifled. I estimate we only see 1% of what actually happens in Ukraine (ignoring big media stories).
The most reliable publication I've found for insights into Ukraine is Strana Today, but you will need to install a translator (Firefox has native support, I don't know about others). They are Russian-slanted but honestly their reporting is more towards neutral (it is less Russia Today and more like a local newspaper). I've learned more things about Ukraine from them than *any* other publication (and that includes front line reporting such as Intel Slava Z):
https://strana.today/
The others to consider are Intel Slava Z (heavily Russian bias but every now and then they show something of Ukraine itself, just be aware on rare occassions there's posts I've found to be entirely false, especially headline and quote attribution):
https://t.me/s/intelslava
For actual front line reporting (Russian side), you want Patrick Lancaster. He's hosted in a number of places, but most surprisingly he's found on YouTube (if you want up-to-date reports though you'll have to visit other websites):
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbjTWVaRx6jMN5ZYgbqe2_w
Russia Today are a very poor outlet for getting Ukrainian updates. They're often several days behind ongoing events, and the writing is heavily sanitised (it has very much a Western mainstream media feel to it, they won't criticise Zionism, for example). That said, they act as the 'official mouthpiece' for the Russian government, and if they've said it, you can be assured the Russian government have backed it, so you can glean insights on how the Russian government views Ukraine itself (which actually seems to change as the war goes on):
https://rt.com
Unfortunately I haven't found anything that gives an accurate idea of the Ukrainian government's viewpoint. Kiyv Indepedent is the closest but it is overwhelmingly propaganda and doesn't even show their true face. To the point you will not learn anything you couldn't have already deduced (Russia bad, Ukraine good guy, Russia did terrible thing to Ukraine etc). One glance at the home page will make you realise how worthless it is for learning anything.
If you want a sobering insight into how little progress Russia are making into Ukraine currently, you want the primarily Western-bias/pro-Ukraine, Institute for the Study of War. They're an outlet covering progress in the war. Whilst it states relatively truthful facts, it works deception heavily via the use of omission (when the maps disappear, Russia is making progress, and when the maps re-appear, Russia has become stalled). They are a think tank and thus are financially incentivised towards pro-Western bias reporting:
https://www.understandingwar.org/
All sources are, of course, bias (myself included) but I've attempted to signpost the type and nature of the bias. You'll come to realise the picture on the ground is very spotty and that is the Fog of War at work. My personal understandings come from sifting a handful of outlets that have proven useful insights and combing it with manual research and investigation to pick up additional details.
Hopes this answers your questions.
" Stuff to convince doubting or ignorant kiev ukrainians that all is well for Donbass ukrainians and that therefore most all they hear is lies."
Oh, it appears I misunderstood your request. I thought you were asking me for on-the-ground sources of what is actually happening in Ukraine, rather than looking for tips on how to sway people politically.
You might find some insights on how to win people over with the coverage in a much older (and admittedly dated) History on Ukraine and Russia series:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-history-between-ukraine-and-russia
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-history-between-ukraine-and-russia-part-2
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-history-between-ukraine-and-russia-part-3
If you think it's too long, focus on Parts 2 and 3. Facts like Crimea voted to join Russia, the lack of any sort of mass exodus, the fact 16,000 "Ukrainian" troops defected to join the Russian military from Crimea are all rather telling facts that undercut the narrative. You should find the papertrail of Stephen Bandera telling but your big issue will be a lot of 'West Ukrainians' actually still support the Nazis and won't actually see that as a criticism they would care about. Maybe the East 'Ukrainians' do live in relative luxury but if ideology is the main driver, you won't be breaking through to any West Ukrainians.
Instead, you might want to focus on how terrible West Ukraine has become. The forced mobilisation, the centralisation of control of the media outlets, the rampant corruption (the rich can pay their way out, the poor cannot), people with lung cancer being sent to the front lines (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-quasi-direct-ukrainian-war).
Donbas reconstruction is a tricky one to cover because the war isn't over, and I consider those areas to be de facto war zones (they could still be droned, missiled, or bombed at any time), so I wouldn't call them as relatively safe. They might be safer than West Ukraine, but I'd never feel comfortable saying to a person it is entirely safe, not until the war is over and fighting ceases. I suppose the same could be said for any part of Russia, but I think you see my point.
"I see nothing there that is: " looking for tips on how to sway people politically."
Do you? How so? Please explain, enlighten me."
I quoted you verbatim:
"Stuff to convince doubting or ignorant kiev ukrainians"
To convince or to sway, same wording. I'm not sure my efforts are being interpreted in good faith here. Am I correct in presuming you're not a native English speaker? I think my words are being lost in translation.
"show them the truth"
If you don't think my own writings, articles, citations are truthful, then I'm not sure why you're asking me for proof to show them. Otherwise, why object, I provided other articles of relevance?
" unfortunately it does not address my need."
I fear you only have a specific definition of an answer you want to hear in mind, and will not entertain any other responses. Unfortunately I am not in the habit of appeasement. If you want your own answers outside of my own, then I suggest you engage in your own research. Nobody does anything for free.