Crash Course in Reading Between The Li(n)es of Propaganda

Trust us, you need this as your life depends on it

May 11, 2024

Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |

Reading time: 26 minutes (27 with footnotes)

Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness^[+] and spirit to the modes^[+] of neutrality^[*^], decency, respectfulness, wisdom^[*^], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we^[*^] designed it, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please.

Did you read the Intro to this “Beware of Propaganda” segment? Please, do so for a better grasp of the topic of this article and because a CIA mind-control experiment explained there at the top is relevant for understanding how you’re being played and why you need to look out.

Our lives are largely dependent on our beliefs and what we believe is mostly dependent on what we hear from authorities through mainstream media. Also, our support for the war effort (rather than peace effort) in Ukraine is also dependent on what we hear or read in the mainstream media and by supporting it because of believing all the lies might lead to a World War III or even a nuclear war, thus your life literally depends on you knowing how to detect lies in the media so that you do not support the warmongers.

Even though there is a saying “don't believe everything that you read in the newspapers,” most people actually do believe it all. And then they base their thoughts, words, and actions accordingly. So, most people in the West became haters of Russians and their leader Putin based on lies served by Western ruling elites who are threatened by them because Russians are defying their hegemony in the world.

The enemies of our ruling elites are not our enemies! In the West, we are living in an illusion that we live in democracy whereas we live in plutocracy1, where the rich rule our world. Money makes the world go round and the moneyed ruling elites do not have our best interests at heart. As a matter of fact, they work against us, against our interests. Since all the mainstream media is controlled by them, we ought to not believe anything they feed us with through such systems of control. Actually, we might believe the opposite is true!

Media literacy is a term that comes up often since the war in Ukraine erupted, and it’s something that, sadly, most common people are sorely lacking in. According to Wikipedia, media literacy is an expanded conceptualization of literacy that includes the ability to access and analyze media messages as well as create, reflect and take action, using the power of information and communication to make a difference in the world. Media literacy is so important, especially today and especially for conservatives subjected to the mainstream media that is dominated by the liberals and Zionists. It allows us to read the news and detect fake news and disinformation.

Not everything in mainstream media is a lie, so it is possible to detect lies from the truth as well as use other methods of finding truth between the lines or lies, so here is how to fight against the Weapons of Mass Deception:

➡ Look for evidence – don't you just love it when authorities make some big claims or threats but never bother to back them up with any evidence or argumentation whatsoever?! And, don't you just love it when authorities make some big claims or threats but journalists reporting on it never even bother to ask them for evidence?! They expect us to just blindly take their word as a gospel or something. They take us for fools only because there are indeed, unfortunately, too many fools who do so. If you do not want to be a fool, ask for evidence (e.g. in comment section of their tweets) and if they provide none even without asking, then just do not believe them or do some fact-checking. If you are a tax-payer, they owe you proof or facts. We challenge you to find any interview with Zelensky when a journalist challenges his claims – if you try, you will know what we mean. It is all scripted propaganda.

For instance, on countless occasions, our high officials claimed that Russians are so weak and backward that they are fighting with shovels^[+]^[+]^[+], rusty and mouldy weapons^[+], and taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»] but why none of reporters asked them for evidence? See if you can find any to realize how you are constantly being played and taken for a fool.

Warning: beware of so-called fact-checking sites as all or most of them are part of propaganda, part of information warfare, and as such can't be trusted, which is easy to determine if all their fact-checking is in favor of just one side of the conflict.

Another instance, whenever they claim^[+]^[+]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[!]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+], that “evil imperialist” Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine but will continue to conquer Europe if we do not stop him by giving all our money and weapons to Ukraine, ask yourself where is any evidence for that. So far, not a single one of them provided any evidence to back up their claims. If they do not give you any evidence, you are free to do a research, to fact-check. It is important. Would you ever give or borrow huge amounts of money and resources to someone who you know is very corrupt and just wants it without bothering to give any valid proof?
By the way, for this case, we did a thorough research and found absolutely no indication, let alone evidence that Putin or Russians intend to conquer or attack any NATO country. Quite the opposite, we found plenty evidence^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] to the contrary as well as evidence^[*^] that it is actually NATO that plans to covertly attack Russia, covertly funds, arms^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] and orchestrates^[+]^[+] terrorist attacks in Russia killing many civilians, plans soft attacks^[+]^[+] on Russia, attempts at regime change in Russia (as they already tried many times – in 2011-2013^[+], 2017/2018^[+], 2019^[+], 2021^[+]), attempts at breaking up Russia^[+] (like they funded Chechen separatists^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]) as they did with USSR and Yugoslavia^[+] (which is why they call their goal “Balkanizing Russia”) and back Uyghur^[+] and Taiwan separatists in China, provokes Russia into attacking a NATO country by a false flag operation or by terrorizing ethnic Russians living there… Therefore, all this narrative of “threats of Russian attacks on NATO countries” is a clear case of what is in social sciences known under various terms such as projecting^[+]^[+] or deflection^[+], gaslighting^[+], diversion^[+] and such.

➡ Projecting – there is a number one pattern we noticed in Western or NATO propaganda machine and that is projecting^[+]^[+] or gaslighting^[+], which signifies a psyop^[+]^[+] method to blame others for own faults. What they constantly do is, they turn the story around to make it seem like someone else is at fault, deflecting attention and blame away from them to make someone else feel guilty. Accusing others of one's own behavior is a classic gaslighter's act^[+]. American and Ukrainian leaders are the masters of the art of blame-shifting concealing their faults and guilt by gaslighting and projecting the guilt onto Russia. So, whenever you hear them claiming something malicious, it is most likely a case of projecting their faults onto Russia and Putin, but don’t trust us, check it yourself. Don't be fooled into anything.

The number one word that the Global Majority^[+] (who for decades have been invaded, bombarded, and raided by NATO states) describes the Western leaders is “hypocrites”, which is what we are talking about here. A classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or “adulterers casting stones” – projecting while accusing Russians of the very wrongs that they themselves are guilty of to the n^thdegree. Still, the fact that the US is so obviously hypocritical in this regard does not necessarily mean Washington is automatically wrong. We must analyze Russia’s conduct on its own merits. Let's not be fooled when “arsonist are blaming the firefighter”. The point here is, we should not support the warmongering gaslighters who are much worse than Russia and rather be neutral, stop the war effort, and give humanitarian aid to both sides.

In the previous bullet point, we already gave an example of Western projections in their narrative of “threats of Russian attacks on NATO countries” and there are hundreds similar cases, such as accusing Russia for expansionism, when it fact it is NATO that is expanding^[ꚛ]^[ꚛ]^[ꚛ]^[+], not Russia, by luring or fearmongering many nations and bribing their leaders into joining NATO. NATO mantra: Rules for thee and not for me!

Another example is the US spreading rumors in February 2024 that Russia is developing a space-based capability to attack satellites using a nuclear weapon^[+]^[+]^[+]. Russia denied it and said^[+] that Washington uses hostile rhetoric and baseless allegations to cover up its own intentions to send weapons into space. The US has been seeking to dismantle legally-binding international security mechanisms by lying that Russia violated it, counting on Russophobic media and public not asking for any evidence. The Pentagon’s manipulations of information is further proof of US attempts to use Russophobic slogans to justify its own plans for militarizing space.

➡ Follow the money – usually, when a crime occurs, to identify crime suspects, the investigators follow the lead of the old Latin question Cui bono?^[+] – in English: to whom is it a benefit or who profits from it? It expresses the view that crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators.

For instance, whenever civilians get killed in an attack, who benefits or profits from it? Never Russia, always Kyiv and NATO because this is how they rump up support and funding for war, which tells us that many if not most of civilian deaths are caused by Kyiv, whether by using civilians as human shields^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+], military taking shelter in civilian areas, or by faulty air defense systems. Also, Kyiv regime2 has been killing including massacring thousands of civilians since 2014, anyone deemed as pro-Russian or Russian collaborator^[+] from Donbas to Bucha, thus they surely continue with it.

A better example is to look at who benefits from this war the most or who would have benefited the most if everything would have gone according to the warmongers’ plan. No doubt, Western globalists of the WEF hoped to preserve their hegemony by containing or harming Russia and with it China but when it comes to states, the US government and its war-profiteers in military, oil, and food & commodity-trading industries are the only ones who have profited from this war, which explains why the US had been the biggest supporter of the war effort in Ukraine until it backfired as they reap what they sowed.

➡ Deduction – reasoning based on known facts but not just from one side or just selective, preferable facts. One-sided facts in wartime is called propaganda, which one needs to avoid in pursuit of truth. The first step – assume nothing. Get as much information. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: data, data, data and you can’t make bricks without clay. Always double-check with independent experts. Sadly, in real life, there are plenty of examples of botched evidence leading to wrongful convictions.

For instance, when news outlets report on some incident such as a Russian missile strike on a town killing civilians, then to see if the reporting is true or half-true or mostly a lie, it is necessary to also read or watch what the other side and independent media report about it as well as the follow-up. This way it is possible to combine the facts and deduce what really happened. Often, only months later an independent investigation exposes the initial faulty reports in mass media but indie media reporters do not get the same publicity so most people miss it, like in the case of the Bucha massacre^[+]^[+], attacked Mariupol maternity hospital^[+]^[+]^[+], missile strikes in Kramatorsk^[+]^[+] and Kremenchuk^[+], etc. – all of which have been debunked and expected^[+].

➡ Following the cues or leads like a detective – over time, an investigative mind is able to gather key information giving some hints or indications in the direction of truth. Like detectives, we may look at the cues and do the math to arrive at truth. Normally, a detective hears stories from a variety of sources, which leads him to the truth. Therefore, it is smart to hear it from all sides, not just one side, to make up one's mind but with an open mind. Many people listen to Russians only looking to find faults but this is not helpful in the pursuit of truth

For instance, hear it from a horse's mouth, the source, witnesses, and independent experts, and go from there step by step investigating those testimonials and other facts rather than just simply believing the war propaganda or fake news in the media. Consider that if the culprit of any crime is too clear-cut, there is a big chance that the person or a nation is being framed, especially if the accused is otherwise known to be smart or accomplished. No one smart would commit an “unprovoked” crime in such a manner that it is extremely obvious who did it. If it smells of a set-up, then point your investigation toward those who are doing it because they must be guilty then.

➡ Connecting the dots^[+] – by drawing lines between the dots in the correct order a picture will be revealed. Likewise, some bits and pieces of information without a direct correlation, when put together may reveal a larger truth or solve the mystery. You can’t connect the dots by looking forward but only by looking backward.

For instance, by looking at various historical facts and patterns as well as the facts about how the universal laws regulate events, it is possible to make out the character and trajectory of Ukraine and even predict how it is going to look at the end. When it comes to figuring out the whole or big picture of any aspect of this war, collect the available information and check or cross-check the facts, whether they are relevant, accurate, and reliable. Then connect the dots and see how it all adds up. You might be able to construct a pretty good picture of what happened or what is happening.

➡ Zooming in – on the surface many things look very different than they are, which is why it is necessary to look closely or under the hood, so to speak.

For instance, many headlines give some declarations that are nothing more than clickbait but when one reads the full article, one gets an impression than the content differs much from the headline. Most people just read the headlines without making the effort to read all about it and so get wrong impressions about the developments, which is probably what the creators of propaganda count on. No one can blame them later for spreading disinformation when they can say that they did report true fact but they are often placed at the end or given in an ambiguous manner.

➡ Using the virtue of rationality and the logic method3 – logical line of reasoning, as well as analytical thinking, critical thinking, and conceptual or big-picture thinking

For instance, if some authorities claim that Russians are losers (defeated, weak, demoralized, ill-advised, etc.) but Ukraine has failed to push them back (Russia seized one-fifth of Ukraine) despite all the NATO aid, then this claim makes no sense and those who make such false claims should, logically, not be trusted

➡ Embrace an ‘investigative mindset’ – in detective handbooks, this is called the ABC principle: Assume nothing, Believe nothing, Challenge and check everything. Nothing should be taken for granted or accepted at face value. Like detectives, take a skeptical approach to any information or evidence. Keep reminding yourself: correlation does not imply causation. Hence, the safest way to test any hypothesis is to try to disprove it. The only true investigative mantra was formulated in 1890 by Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. It goes like this: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The hardest thing is to resist our automatic assumptions and deep-seated need for closure.

Suppose you think your house keys are lost or stolen. Then, it might be a good idea to double-check and eliminate all other options before you decide to change your locks. Likewise, suppose you think Ukraine is invaded. Then, it might be a good idea to double-check and eliminate all other options before you decide to send weapons. Because 87%4 of the world will tell you that Ukraine attacked first and Russia defends its people and is saving pure Ukrainians from Western immoral neocolonialism.

➡ Investigations for where there's smoke, there's fire – if there are rumors, hints, accusations, or signs that someone has done something wrong, there is usually a good chance it must be at least partly true. This is a very tricky proposition because people can also project, lie, hate, and simply say things that have nothing to do with reality, therefore, such rumors should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be clear that there's a difference between rumors and official statements. So, this smoke-fire indication refers to the rumors rather than statements from the rivals.

Therefore, if Putin's enemies call him evil, this is no “smoke” but if there was a rumor among many Russians (who are not political rivals or their friends) that Putin did certain evil deeds^[+] (like blasphemy, torture, child trafficking, or organ trafficking), then such allegations could be taken as “smoke” and should be investigated if there was indeed “fire” there. If sending troops into a military operation would constitute evil, then all American presidents are evil. A better example might be rumors that Zelensky is a cocaine addict – here one can say, where there's smoke, there's fire because why there are no such rumors about Putin or other presidents but there are many about Zelensky? Every rumor has some foundation; when things appear suspicious, something is wrong and should be investigated. As long as we adhere to the good old presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”, we should be cautious (rather than distrustful or judgmental) of those with a bad reputation and investigate.

➡ Recognizing wolves in sheep's clothing or villains in disguise (baddies pretending to be the goodies) – the world is full of actors who play a duplicitous role, power-hungry people with a pleasant and friendly appearance that hides the fact that their intentions are malevolent, immoral, egoistic, or greedy. How can you tell if someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing? They live to take power instead of empowering others, manipulate through emotions to get what they want, charm you to get you to give them what they want, their stories are full of holes, and exert predatory behavior while pretending to be heroes… Sounds like anyone you know?

For instance, there is much debate about Zelensky's clothing, inappropriate for a head of state and for visiting foreign parliaments, the Pope, and other international events with a strict dress code, which he snubs. A rich multi-millionaire in a poor guy's clothing is surely reminiscent of the “wolf in sheep's clothing” analogy. The same could not be said about Putin in any way because he is not pretending to be a hero or a saint.

➡ Abductive reasoning – the cognitive process of identifying the best possible explanation for a given set of observations. This widely recognized powerful mechanism for hypothetical reasoning in the absence of complete knowledge is Sherlock Holmes’ favorite logical approach^[+].

For instance, when a doctor makes a medical diagnosis given a set of symptoms. A wise doctor won’t leap to make the first diagnosis that springs to mind but will consider medical history (anamnesis) and many alternatives to see which best matches the presentation before them. Similarly, criminal investigations are abductive and not deductive taking into account a number of different sources of information such as witness statements, motives, patterns, and prior activity, to find out what really happened and rule out other scenarios. However, most common people in the West jumped to conclusions when Russia attacked Ukraine in February based on one single indicator – the alleged “unprovoked invasion” of the alleged sick-minded Putin. The Western public ignored all the other indicators, motives, and history. Understandably, people are too busy to investigate all crime scenes like a detective but then they should not be judgmental or support one side based on insufficient inquiry or analysis.

➡ Abductive reasoning via the duck test – “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck” – if something looks and acts a certain recognizable way, it probably is exactly what it appears to be. It implies that one can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. Liars and losers are easy to spot by their mimicry and gestures.

One example would be observations about Zelensky's symptoms of cocaine users: delusions, voice hoarseness, chronic runny nose and rubbing his nose^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»] all the time, dilated pupils, frantic behavior such as often shifting from foot to foot, up and down mood swings^[+]^[+] (cheerful and angry), sloppy appearance (inappropriate for a head of state), swollen puffy face, feeling superior to other people (assuming moral superiority over Putin and all Russians)... Are these facial expressions^[»] normal behavior for a head of a state who is responsible for millions of lives or is it more like someone with a substance abuse problem? Work it out for yourself whether he passes the duck test or not so long as he is “too busy” to do the drug test.

Another example is to recognize big deceivers by their little deceptions, such as in this case when Reuters, Yahoo News, etc. presented^[+] Patrushev^[+] as “Putin's ally” and “Kremlin's top hawk” rather than as his rank in Russian government in attempt to discount his statements about the findings regarding the terrorist attack on Krasnogorsk concert venue "Crocus City Hall" ^[+]^[+] north west of Moscow killing 144 civilians and injuring 360. Patrushev was accusing NATO for helping terrorist attacks on Russia from Ukraine and the US wanting to destroy Russia, which is why NATO controlled media felt a need to discredit him and so deceive their readers by suggesting Patrushev is lying because he is nothing but a “Putin's ally”. They hardly mention at all that Nikolai Patrushev was Russia's top security officer at that time and former intelligence officer serving as a Secretary of the Security Council of Russia (chaired by Putin and Medvedev) since 2008 and that before he served as the director of the Federal Security Service (FSB). In other words, at that time, he was the highest authority in Russia when it comes to terrorist attacks and all national security issues. So, if anyone knows who did it, it is him and his Investigative Committee! The fact that Western reporters never call any of US National Security Council high officials as “Biden's ally” or “White House's top hawks”, such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, or Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, it is clear what their intentions are. Therefore, such foxy reporters are not to be trusted. “If it looks like a fox, walks like a fox, and growls like a fox, then it probably is a fox.”

➡ Kinesiological examination with a muscle test – our muscles are lie detectors (truth = strong muscles, lie = weak muscles) because of cellular memory. A polygraph machine may be used to detect if a person lies or not as it records muscular activity accompanying changes in blood pressure but highly sensitive people do not need machines for that. In a nutshell, our muscles go weak when we are in the presence of something false or wrong and are strong when we are presented with the truth. Some muscles are more telling than others like in arms and shoulders. A horizontally raised arm can be then slightly pressed by a neutral person to test whether the muscles are weak or strong (a pushed arm stays stretched or bends). This can be used to test the veracity of any statement but there is a catch: both people need to be neutral or at some higher mode of consciousness^[+].

This can be likened to using instincts (biologically hard-wired innate behaviors that enhance our ability to cope with contingencies, which should be distinguished from reflexes that are simple responses to a specific stimulus) whereby one can instinctively do the right or safe thing without having any prior experience or knowledge. For instance, people instinctively place a hand on the part of a body that hurts not knowing the power of healing by hand. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will instinctively move toward the ocean. However, only people with high levels of consciousness may rely on their instincts because others harboring lower, negative modes of consciousness^[+], tend to have correspondingly negative instincts. So, someone who is generally fearful will instinctively fear anything and be susceptible to Russophobia. Likewise, gullible people will instinctively believe authorities, hateful people will instinctively hate anyone challenging their views, and so on. Tribal loyalty makes the public instinctively follow their tribe, that is, their shepherds' guidelines.

➡ Gut feeling or intuition or sixth sense – intuitive people can easily feel when someone is lying or telling the truth

➡ Thought-provoking discussions – on social media platforms or offline. High-quality exploration of ideas allows for opening new horizons and seeing things from different angles or perspectives. One important factor to keep in mind is being open-minded, otherwise, what is the point of just seeking to reinforce one’s existing beliefs or prejudices? Various interpretations, rationales, and inferences during discussions have no meaning if a discussion is held in a community that is full of one-sided individuals, so no point in seeking the truth by hanging only in pro-Ukrainian forums, for instance. For out-of-the-box thinking and out-of-the- propaganda-views one needs to make an effort to venture into the opponent territory, play with fire, so to speak, explore different avenues, broaden one’s horizons, expand one’s consciousness, avoid tunnel vision, acquire fresh insights, experiment, expand, play a ‘devil’s advocate’, and have a go at considering something different, unfamiliar, or new. Dr. Watson’s role is not to solve the case but to be skeptical and point to things that Sherlock Holmes might have overlooked or misunderstood. Holding to a hatred of Putin or assuming moral superiority may have its benefits but not as many as knowing the whole truth

➡ The dialectical method^[+] – refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric. In classical philosophy, such as in the philosophies of Socrates and Plato, dialectic is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) in the spirit of inquiry and truth-seeking. The outcome of such a dialectic might be the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a qualitative improvement of the position on an issue. In the modern period, Fichte proposed the "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" model while Hegel refigured "dialectic"^[+] to no longer refer to a literal dialogue. Instead, the term takes on the specialized meaning of development by way of overcoming internal contradictions. In a nutshell, one should take the merits of both the thesis and antithesis into account, creating a new thesis called the synthesis.

➡ Decoding the biased lingo – since Western MSM media is totally one-sided, biased, pro-Ukrainian, it always inflates Ukrainian triumphs and deflates the Russian ones, which is why one needs to decode their widely used terms in regards to war in Ukraine, as used by the Kyiv regime: "Situation is difficult" – meaning: "We are getting obliterated by the Russian army". "We took up more advantageous positions" – meaning: "We were forced to retreat". "We will never leave (insert the name of a city or village)" – meaning: “That city or a village is about to fall”. "We have eliminated 200 enemy tanks" – meaning: "We have lost 200 tanks". "We have shot down 20 out of 15 Russian missiles" – meaning: "All Russian missiles have reached their targets". "Russia is losing and running out of ammo" – meaning: "Russia is winning and has plenty of ammo". The list could go on, of course, but this gives one a basic idea on how to interpret these statements once processed by the MSM news.

Some examples of reading between the lines or lies:

➡ The New York Times^[+] and copied by The Japan Times^[+] published the same article titled "Who’s gaining ground in Ukraine? This year, no one“ – it is no secret that the US and Japan are Ukrainian cheerleaders, so it is expected of them to spin stories in Ukrainian favor, so when there's a title like that, although it is reporting a lie or a half-truth, it is possible to get to the truth about Ukrainian failure to achieve anything despite all the NATO support. The obvious lie is that Russians gained no ground as anyone who is even slightly informed knows the fact that, unlike Ukrainians, Russians did gain some significant ground as they seized at least the cities of Bakhmut/Artyomovsk^[+] and Soledar^[+] as well as Maryinka town and many villages surrounding them and Avdeevka as well as many territories and strongholds^[ꚛ]. Despite Ukraine being on a major offensive in 2023, the AFU5 did not manage to retake a single town or a city, which even Ukrainian major allies acknowledged here. So, from reports like that, it is possible to interpret that, despite all the Ukrainian propaganda of gaining ground in their counteroffensive, Ukrainians actually failed to do it, even though their allies do not spell it like that but the bright people can get it. No need to read between the lines, though, if one informs oneself better, and investigates further from independent Western sources, which tell that for instance from 01.01.-01.10.2023, Russia had gained 331 square miles while Ukraine gained 143, a difference of 188, which amounts to Russia’s net gain^[+]. Bear in mind, they always inflate Ukrainian gains and deflate Russian ones.

The pro-Ukraine New York Times made this graph of military gains in 2023

The pro-Ukraine New York Times made this map illustrating military gains in 2023

Reading between the lines is also done by noticing the contradictions between the title and content. In the case of that NYT article, the headline claims no gains in its headline but the NYT graphics department admits Russia has gained 331 square miles or 188, net gain in territory so far this year.

Reading between the lines is also done by noticing inconsistent reporting^[+]. First, for some time, they bombard us with headlines about Ukrainian weekly gains but then tell us casually that there were no gains. Which is it?

➡ When a pro-Ukrainian media outlet reports that Ukrainian President's Office prepares to change military leadership due to slow progress in counteroffensive^[+] such euphemisms can be taken to mean that the counteroffensive failed and that Russians defeated them. No one changes a winning military leadership but a failing one and the “slow progress” phrase is nothing but dodging to state the obvious. Knowing how loud they usually are about minor conquests, it is safe to conclude that since they inflate the gains, they surely deflate the losses. One could also read more into it, such as that if Zelensky wanted to sack his then-Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, there must be tensions between President Zelensky and General Zaluzhny due to political rivalry. This report came just days after a poll^[+] disclosed that the public trusts and approves much more the Army than the President – 42% strongly approved Zelensky while 82% strongly approved, far-right^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] Zaluzhny! So, if Zaluzhny would run for office, he would clearly win and therefore Zelensky is getting rid of him and blaming him for failed counteroffensive so that people would not vote for him.

➡ The Western media keeps reporting how Russia is constantly losing, being bled to death, its defeats huge, its victories negligible, its armaments and ammunition nearly exhausted suffering massively greater casualties than Ukrainians, the Russian military is allegedly weak, demoralized, and underequipped, fighting with shovels^[+]^[+]^[+], rusty and mouldy weapons^[+], and taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»] but if this is really true, one begs the question, why with all the NATO aid has Ukraine not managed to defeat those Russian weaklings, push them away? There is something seriously off with that narrative. It's widely known that when talking about others, people speak about themselves. So, reading between the lines, what they are actually saying about NATO and Ukrainians is that they are much worse than Russians if they are being defeated by such an allegedly weak army. If Russians seized more than one-fifth of Ukraine and after almost two years of fighting, Ukrainians haven’t managed to retake their land and join NATO, that means Russians defeated them and achieved all their main objectives: prevented Ukraine from joining NATO, liberated ethnic Russians and kept Crimea. They even made Russia greater, demilitarized not just Ukraine but also NATO (depleted its stockpiles^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]), and denazified Ukraine to a large extent.

Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we^[*^]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. This article is part of the “Beware of Propaganda” segment so far covering Intro, Zelensky’s Lies “Putin's lies”, Mainstream Media Lies, Writings On The Wall, NATO Cognitive Warfare, and Resistance To the Truth.

When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Beware of Propaganda” series: Not An “Unprovoked” Invasion

Ukraine Peace Initiative Substack

Discussion about this post