(November 13, 2025 at 2:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes, The Spectator is widely considered to be a biased publication with a clear conservative and right-wing stance. The magazine itself states its writers "make no pretence at being impartial" and that its motto is "firm, but unfair".

That's true. The Spectator is known for its conservative stance and its close association with the British Conservative establishment. Several prominent UK politicians rose through the ranks by working at the Spectator.

Like the conservative establishment politicians in Britain, the Spectator has supported Ukraine consistently throughout its war with Russia. The British government and its media are very much pro-Ukraine. 

So it is noteworthy when a newspaper like this publishes something which goes against its normal partisan line. When your most consistent supporters start to talk about your corruption, there's a good chance they are preparing the public for a change in the power structure. If the people propping up Zelensky are beginning to speak ill of him in very public ways, he may well be in trouble.

Anyway, if you know anything about the content of the story -- why its assertions are incorrect, for example -- you could address that.

You know who's propping up zelensky? Russia.

(November 13, 2025 at 7:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 13, 2025 at 2:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes, The Spectator is widely considered to be a biased publication with a clear conservative and right-wing stance. The magazine itself states its writers "make no pretence at being impartial" and that its motto is "firm, but unfair".

That's true. The Spectator is known for its conservative stance and its close association with the British Conservative establishment. Several prominent UK politicians rose through the ranks by working at the Spectator.

Like the conservative establishment politicians in Britain, the Spectator has supported Ukraine consistently throughout its war with Russia. The British government and its media are very much pro-Ukraine. 

So it is noteworthy when a newspaper like this publishes something which goes against its normal partisan line. When your most consistent supporters start to talk about your corruption, there's a good chance they are preparing the public for a change in the power structure. If the people propping up Zelensky are beginning to speak ill of him in very public ways, he may well be in trouble.

Anyway, if you know anything about the content of the story -- why its assertions are incorrect, for example -- you could address that.

(Bold mine)

The Spectator is not a newspaper. In the almost 200 years of its existence, it has never been a newspaper.

Boru

Zelensky's corruption is no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. It can't be dismissed as the fantasy of a conservative newspaper.

Here is an article from four years ago in the very not-conservative Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oc...-zelenskiy

Note that at the time the article was written, Zelensky's sponsor, the oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, hadn't yet been run out of Ukraine. Since that time he has been disgraced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolom..._Zelenskyy

Kolomoyskyi is responsible for the fact that Zelensky, who used to dance on TV with fake boobs pinned to his T-shirt, had the political and financial backing to run for president (on a platform promising peace, which is why people voted for him).

(November 14, 2025 at 7:43 am)Belacqua Wrote: Zelensky's corruption is no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. It can't be dismissed as the fantasy of a conservative newspaper.

Zelenskyy has also been a target for Russian fake news—you know, the ones that you often fall for and spread on this forum.

Quote:Fact check: Russian fake news targets Ukraine's Zelenskyy

From lavish shopping sprees to luxury yachts, disinformation swirls around Ukraine's president. DW's Fact Check team investigates dubious claims that aim to weaken Western support for the country's ongoing war.

"Strategically, the West is still standing by Ukraine, but this year will be an important turning point, said Julia Smirnova from the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue. A specialist in disinformation, she told DW that Russia was doing its best to undermine solidarity with Ukraine with fake news and propaganda.

The DW Fact Check team examined evidence that the Ukrainian president and his family have been the targets of anti-Ukrainian disinformation. There have been various false claims regarding their allegedly lavish lifestyle in recent months. DW looked at two in particular that went viral.

Did Zelenskyy buy two luxury boats worth several million dollars?

DW fact check: False

This allegation, which is particularly popular in the US, implies that Zelenskyy has not been using US aid to defend Ukraine against Russia but to live "an extravagant lifestyle." One tweet posted in November to make this claim was viewed more than 4 million times, yet it was clearly disinformation.

However, it must be noted that there have been credible allegations of corruption involving Zelenskyy and Serhiy Shefir. In the Pandora Papers, an international team of journalists revealed that Zelenskyy had sold a stake in an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands to Shefir not long before becoming president in 2019. Neither has ever commented publicly on the allegations.

Did Olena Zelenska buy $1.1 million worth of jewelry in New York?
Claim: According to an online article and various social media posts, Zelenskyy's wife spent $1,100,000 on a shopping spree in New York when she accompanied her husband to the US to secure continued support from Washington.

DW fact check: False

The Washington Post recently reported that it had reviewed over 100 internal Kremlin documents obtained by a European intelligence service and shared with the US daily, which "expose for the first time the scale of Kremlin propaganda targeting Zelenskyy with the aim of dividing and destabilizing Ukrainian society."

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-russian...a-68346906

Corruption in Ukraine is relevant how exactly for the evaluation of the invasion of Ukraine?
Oh, breaking news: Russia is at least as corrupt. Why then exactly is Bel not ok with NATO invasion of Russia?  ..not even with eastwards expansion?  

(November 13, 2025 at 7:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 13, 2025 at 2:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes, The Spectator is widely considered to be a biased publication with a clear conservative and right-wing stance. The magazine itself states its writers "make no pretence at being impartial" and that its motto is "firm, but unfair".

That's true. The Spectator is known for its conservative stance and its close association with the British Conservative establishment. Several prominent UK politicians rose through the ranks by working at the Spectator.

Like the conservative establishment politicians in Britain, the Spectator has supported Ukraine consistently throughout its war with Russia. The British government and its media are very much pro-Ukraine. 

So it is noteworthy when a newspaper like this publishes something which goes against its normal partisan line. When your most consistent supporters start to talk about your corruption, there's a good chance they are preparing the public for a change in the power structure. If the people propping up Zelensky are beginning to speak ill of him in very public ways, he may well be in trouble.

Anyway, if you know anything about the content of the story -- why its assertions are incorrect, for example -- you could address that.

In the USA it's the liberals who have supported Ukraine and the conservatives who have begrudged every dollar spent and encouraged Ukraine to surrender territory. The Spectator has called for a negotiated settlement and has been critical of Western policy and Ukrainian internal politics. It does say it supports the principle of Ukrainian defense, though.

If you know of a much less biased source that asserts the same things, you could address that.

(November 14, 2025 at 7:43 am)Belacqua Wrote: Zelensky's corruption is no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. It can't be dismissed as the fantasy of a conservative newspaper.

It can be, not only because there's no evidence of zelensky being corrupt, but because even if zelensky were corrupt it has precisely zero bearing on russia's invasion of ukraine.

Quote:Here is an article from four years ago in the very not-conservative Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oc...-zelenskiy

A story which does not actually contain anything about zelensky...and which ukranians...as well as anyone else paying attention was aware of prior to the invasion.  

Quote:Note that at the time the article was written, Zelensky's sponsor, the oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, hadn't yet been run out of Ukraine. Since that time he has been disgraced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolom..._Zelenskyy

Also stripped of his citizenship...by zelensky.

Quote:Kolomoyskyi is responsible for the fact that Zelensky, who used to dance on TV with fake boobs pinned to his T-shirt, had the political and financial backing to run for president (on a platform promising peace, which is why people voted for him).

Credit where it's due, he did run on peace.  The idea of war with russia isn't something he seemed naturally inclined to believe was a real possibility.  His first language is russian and he was popular in russia.  He also thought we were full of shit about russia prepping an invasion until they actually invaded.  That almost cost them the war.  There's alot that people probably wouldn't like about him on this side of the pond, and especially here on the boards. Corruption aint it.

Russia is responsible for Zelensky, Bel.  Russia is responsible for his rise to power, and russia is responsible for the fact that he remains in power.  If russia had not been intent on looting ukraine he never would have had a winning message. The quickest way for zelensky to be removed from power is...wait for it.....russian retreat. Now, I'm not a master strategist like vladimir vladimirovich - but if I was running the show in moscowstan I'd fall back, let ukraine replace what is obviously a very competent opposition administration, refocus on inciting a goddamned race war, and stop counting on the likes of you to win hearts and minds in the english speaking world.

(November 14, 2025 at 1:40 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the USA it's the liberals who have supported Ukraine and the conservatives who have begrudged every dollar spent and encouraged Ukraine to surrender territory. The Spectator has called for a negotiated settlement and has been critical of Western policy and Ukrainian internal politics. It does say it supports the principle of Ukrainian defense, though.

If you know of a much less biased source that asserts the same things, you could address that.

Well, a lot of people have said that a negotiated settlement is the least bad option at this time. It would take a lot of time to go through the background of each one of these people and quantify their bias. 

I also think that a negotiated settlement would be best at this point, since the "more shooting" approach seems not to be anywhere near settling things, and I think it's bad for people to die when they don't have to. 

There is A GREAT DEAL about which one could be critical of Western policy. We'd have to specify which of many policies, from which of many spokespeople, in fact deserve criticism. 

And internal Ukrainian politics has long been considered to be particularly corrupt, since years before Zelensky got involved, so criticism of that is only reasonable. Whether every single criticism made by the Spectator is reasonable or not I can't judge. 

Each and every large-scale news outlet has a bias and a point of view. If the Spectator announces its own political preferences on its first page I see this as a good thing. Not that I agree with their viewpoint, but I think it is far better to be clear than to pretend that one is without bias. The sources which pretend to be neutral are simply dishonest.

The best we can do is to remain aware of each source's viewpoints when reading, and finding those reporters -- particularly small-scale, independent and knowledgeable people -- who have proven through their track records that they don't parrot the current establishment lies.

(November 15, 2025 at 1:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: I also think that a negotiated settlement would be best at this point...

Excellent! How many states do you plan on giving to Russia?