Now let's talk coverage via NATO mediaI admit these perception managed media reports are a cause for concern- They're extremely irrational.
And malicious. The situation is tense enough. Why does the US/NATO media have to inflame the situation- When I think about the competing interests in that area!! I shudder.
Let's keep our wits about us when following this news
Two news stories as examples- Let’s read them with a critical and logical eye to the facts
Mirror UK & Politico.com
Claims vs Facts
Claim- “Russian commanders are ignoring their own requests for military-to-military "de-confliction" with the U.S. as their warplanes attack Syrian resistance fighters Wednesday, a defense official told POLITICO.
"It completely bypasses every bit of legitimate discussion we've had with them so far," the official complained”
Fact- Was there an agreement on the part of the US to cooperate with Russia?
It does not seem so. It’s not mentioned anywhere in this Politico article.
Since it’s not mentioned we have to conclude that the US did NOT agree to deconflict.
The only statements of fact are Russia requested military to military deconfliction and there was “legitimate discussion” regarding that request. No mention of agreement-
Discussion does not equal agreement.
Agreement = Agreement
Claim- Politico spins a further fabrication that Russia did not use any lines of communication to let their actions be known while contradicting themselves in this sentenceUPDATE!- U.S. brushes off Russian request to avoid Syrian airspace
Fact- “a Russian general appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad this morning and announced that the first Russian air operations would begin shortly, the defense official said.”
Clearly the Russian’s communicated their intent, up close and in person! Who on earth is fooled by the Politico fabrication that Russia did not use any lines of communication!
Back to claims vs facts:
Which tells me that the US did not agree to deconflict, as I had stated above.
"The United States on Wednesday said it had conducted air strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria within the last hour or so, brushing aside a Russian request to avoid Syrian airspace"
Insinuated claim- Russia endangered others.
Fact: “The general warned American units to keep away, but U.S. warplanes continued to fly in Syria as normal” Logic tells me it was the US that endangered others!>>>
Politico reports the General went to the embassy, (earlier news indicates an hour beforehand) minimally an hour before the strikes were launched and the US warplanes kept flying.
Therefore the US endangered their own. Russia did not.
Claim; “A French diplomat has accused Russia of lying about the target of air strikes carried out in Syria on Wednesday”>>>
Fact- Russia made it abundantly clear that they were targeting those that were striking Syria- Period. Therefore, Russia did not lie.
Claim: “The Russian Defence Ministry claims it has started a bombing campaign against "Islamic State terrorist dens" in cooperation with the Syrian air force.>>>
Facts: Russia is cooperating with the Syrian airforce, which makes Russian presence vastly more legitimate then US. And since the US has been supporting ISIS all along........It’s a given that Russia will strike those terrorists propped up by the US not limited to brand ISIS
Claim: "a French diplomatic source claims the Russians have attacked Syrian opposition targets rather than IS strongholds"
Fact: Striking US/NATO/Israeli backed opposition is targeting ISIS- So at least there the diplomat was correct since there is no difference between US backed opposition and NATO backed ISIS.
Use discernment and don't get caught up in the hype- Stay cool headed friends :)