As the rhetoric between the USA and Russia intensified during their ongoing proxy war in Syria, the Guardian firmly maintained its parroting of Western policy. On a constant basis Russia has been scrutinized and attacked by mainstream media for its position on the crisis.
The G8 countries met this weekend to negotiate and here is a Guardian headline;
Underneath that headline you’ll find no follow-up remarks as to why or even how Russia will face isolation. Just one biased, opinionated headline is given with no actual journalism on why the headline has been written in the first place. What makes this statement even worse is that far from being backed up by facts it is actually, in some respects, opposite to the truth. As noted by one regular commentator;
18 June 2013 9:03am
“Syria Crisis: Russia Faces G8 Isolation”
Ironic, since all the evidence and polls suggest that the actual voters of the G8 countries support Putin’s approach to Syria, not those of their own governments. The headline could read “Syria Crisis: Russia in line with Western public opinion, other G8 governments isolated.” So who’s pulling Cameron’s strings on Syria? Why is he so keen to support the proxy war of US hawks and Gulf dictators against Iran and ignore his own voters?
The following day the Guardian once again bases its statements against Russia on anonymous British diplomats by stating that;
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is willing to see the removal of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, but only if it leads to a balanced government and not a dangerous power vacuum of the kind that followed Saddam Hussein’s removal in Iraq, British officials believe after two days of intensive talks at the G8 summit.
To those who were actually keeping an eye on the G8 these reports seem completely contrary to what actually happened. Here are 2 comments from the readers that summarize this point.
We’ve had this time and time again. Unnamed UK officials ‘spin’ that Russia is moving towards Britain’s position and time and time again the press dutifully report it as fact and time and time again it’s bollocks. The Russians have said from Day One that their concern is not whether Assad stays or goes but that there is peace and stability in Syria
“Vladimir Putin may allow Assad to go if power vacuum in Syria is avoided”
Quite astounding doublespeak on the Guardian’s behalf. And further proof-positive that this newspaper is a mere mouthpiece for Whitehall and UK foreign policy.
This anti-Russian tirade has been going on since the conflict began (evidently less so since a military stalemate and political polarization occurred).
Here are some clippings from an editorial called “Syria: Assad’s last stand” published by the Guardian on Tuesday the 4th of December 2012.
“Bashar al-Assad has ringed the city with a force 80,000-strong and is reported by his Russian interlocutors to have lost all hope of either victory or escape”
“Over 20 months into this conflict, there are signs, too, that Russia is having second thoughts. Its military support of Assad was doomed to failure from the start”
“Russia’s position is weaker now that the rebels are stronger militarily, and that European support for the Free Syrian Army means money and arms are now flooding in”
Listed below are 3 more articles to back up this claim of anti Russian bias regarding Syria:
Thursday 9 August 2012 > For the record, Russia and China failed Syria
Tuesday 7 February 2012 > Syria: Russia on the wrong side
Tuesday 24 May 2011 > Let’s call Russia’s bluff on Syria
There are many more examples of this proxy propaganda on the Guardian website and in time I will update this post with more links.