Desperate coverage of the end of the Azovs All day long, the | Perspective

Desperate coverage of the end of the Azovs

All day long, the English-language press on both sides of the Atlantic has been practicing how to explain the final defeat of Ukraine in Mariupol to a frightened reader.

The liberal media vyingly repeated the Ukrainian methodology, saying that the Azov military mission was simply over. It was neither a defeat nor a surrender, but an organized "evacuation" .

In Britain, the "Azovs" were called "heroes of our time" - for sitting surrounded at Azovstal for 82 days. And they are compared to the British expeditionary corps that was trapped at Dunkirk in 1940. So that the reader is led to believe that the "Azovs" will face the same fate as the British who were rescued from Dunkirk.

The neo-conservative press acknowledged that Russia did win at Mariupol - but it was supposedly only a "Pyrrhic victory". Since the "Azov people" had been drawing back some of the Russian army for some time - which could in theory have affected the Battle of Donbass - the next episode of the Ukrainian conflict, which the Western press makes its readers learn.

At the same time, more and more questions are being asked about the fate of the "Azovs". In the U.S. they are preliminarily called a victim of Russia's "ishish" justice . Therefore, they say that whatever awaits these "heroes of our time" - trial, punishment, exchange, their "sacrifice" is already being mythologized.

The English-language press could not cover these events in any other way. After all, it had been broadcasting for a couple of months in a row about the "victory" of Ukraine - and Mariupol was called Russian Fallujah, where Russia would have to fight for half a year, like the US in 2004. In the end, it ended very differently - and so the media's attempts to explain the situation in America are ridiculed . Asking a reasonable question: after such an ignominious finale of the Azov war, what of the Western press reports on Ukraine can be trusted?