I get what you mean but I used this piece specifically because western media started to downplay Zalensky’s threat of developing nuclear arms as misunderstanding. Putin seem to think it is credible. And I hope it is.
They’re definitely pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine due to basic human decency, just more nuanced and less concerned with appearance because they report from Hispanic / Latino perspective and naturally they’re a bit more detached due to distance.
Being less worried about appearance in regards to war in Ukraine stems from aspiring to be the voice of global south, at least in my perception. They tend to underscore humanitarian cost and threat of escalation because they don’t have as much historical context as Eastern Europe does, but that doesn’t mean they don’t recognise that the blame is solely on Russia. To them invasion of Ukraine is about as distant as civil war in Myanmar is for someone in Ukraine.
El Pais reminds me of weekly news/political magazines from the time when those were still printed on paper. Their reporting covers majors news, politics but also popular science and culture. What’s nice about them is that they’re don’t publish a story unless it’s reasonably fleshed out. Even though it’s obviously left leaning it doesn’t go overtly partisan like The Guardian.
Putin saying something doesn’t tell you anything about what he believes.
He took the opportunity to paint Ukraine in a dangerous light, and put out a threat of escalation as well, while also painting Russia in a powerful and rightful way.
although Zelenskiy later clarified that neither a nuclear program “nor anything like that” is part of his plans
They’re repeating Russian talking points to a non-thing.
I wouldn’t take any of those things at face value. Even a veiled threat that was later downplayed could have been made just so that the other side starts considering it more seriously.
The title and teaser really don’t make the article justice.
The title and teaser is promoting Putins propaganda.
The article later does give context both to what Zelensky said and the history of Ukraine denuclearization and failed security guarantees.
I still hate the whole layout. First and foremost, it fearmongers or baits.
I would have liked a title that summarizes the article, or puts Putins claims into context. Not publishing Russian propaganda.
I get what you mean but I used this piece specifically because western media started to downplay Zalensky’s threat of developing nuclear arms as misunderstanding. Putin seem to think it is credible. And I hope it is.
@[email protected] what’s up with El Pais, or has it always been like this?
They’re definitely pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine due to basic human decency, just more nuanced and less concerned with appearance because they report from Hispanic / Latino perspective and naturally they’re a bit more detached due to distance.
Tnx. So "less worried about appearance ", is being the main difference you reckon?
I checked them out, apart of being pro PS some years ago, they came out very trustworthy and factual.
Yet somehow the paper “reads” completely different to other western media outlets,. It could be what you said.
Being less worried about appearance in regards to war in Ukraine stems from aspiring to be the voice of global south, at least in my perception. They tend to underscore humanitarian cost and threat of escalation because they don’t have as much historical context as Eastern Europe does, but that doesn’t mean they don’t recognise that the blame is solely on Russia. To them invasion of Ukraine is about as distant as civil war in Myanmar is for someone in Ukraine.
El Pais reminds me of weekly news/political magazines from the time when those were still printed on paper. Their reporting covers majors news, politics but also popular science and culture. What’s nice about them is that they’re don’t publish a story unless it’s reasonably fleshed out. Even though it’s obviously left leaning it doesn’t go overtly partisan like The Guardian.
Putin saying something doesn’t tell you anything about what he believes.
He took the opportunity to paint Ukraine in a dangerous light, and put out a threat of escalation as well, while also painting Russia in a powerful and rightful way.
They’re repeating Russian talking points to a non-thing.
I wouldn’t take any of those things at face value. Even a veiled threat that was later downplayed could have been made just so that the other side starts considering it more seriously.