WhatsNew2Day
Latest News And Breaking Headlines

PETER HITCHENS: Can anyone explain to me why this was called evacuation and not surrender?

I laughed out loud at Marks & Spencer when I found out that they are now selling something called ‘Chicken Kyiv’.

Apparently this is just like your old ‘Chicken kyiv’, only with added blurb. I was told that now there is also a ‘No Chicken Kyiv’ for vegans, with no real chicken.

Not since the wild frenzy that followed Princess Diana’s death have I encountered a wave of ignorant sentiment like this. Nobody knows anything about Ukraine. Everyone has fierce opinions about it.

The other night I shocked a distinguished Oxford academic by informing her that the beautiful, angelic, saintly, perfect Ukrainians had blocked the water supply to Crimea in 2014.

UK media coverage of this event took great pains not to mention neo-Nazis and to avoid using the word

UK media coverage of this event took great pains not to mention neo-Nazis and to avoid using the word “surrender”.

She was rightly surprised by this disgusting and uncivilized act of spite, but it was much more surprising that this highly educated person did not know this important fact.

In the same way, hardly anyone, in education, politics, or journalism, knows about the ugly and racist roots of Ukrainian nationalism, the horrible story of the vicious Stepan Bandera (now a Ukrainian national hero), or the kyiv state’s discriminatory contempt for the Russians. idiom. If Canada treated its Francophones the way Ukraine treats its Russophones, there would be international outrage.

Worst of all is the widespread ignorance of the fact that President Volodymyr Zelensky, in my opinion an admirable man, was elected on a peace program with Russia. But when he tried to do what he had promised, he was blocked by parts of his own army, who publicly confronted and humiliated him.

At the same time, his political rivals, including neo-Nazis who definitely exist in Ukraine, took to the streets to denounce any kind of treatment. President Zelensky collapsed. And the war came.

I have mentioned here before that the first act of violence in this war was actually the Western-backed mafia coup that toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014.

This was the real beginning of all the horror. And while it doesn’t excuse Putin’s idiotic and brutal invasion, it goes a long way toward explaining it.

Look, I respect those who side with Ukraine in this war. They have a valid point of view that I do not share. But what I object to is the totally one-sided nature of public opinion here. It is so bad that it is a positive disadvantage to know something about it.

Instead, the Mariupol garrison was said to have been ¿evacuated¿ into Russian-held territory.  The images showed them unarmed and being frisked by Russian soldiers.

Instead, the Mariupol garrison was said to have been “evacuated” to Russian-controlled territory. The images showed them unarmed and being frisked by Russian soldiers.

And it reached its peak last week when Ukrainian defenders of the Mariupol steelworks, many of them in fact neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion who proudly wear SS emblems on their official uniforms, surrendered.

British media coverage of this event took great pains not to mention neo-Nazis and to avoid using the word “surrender”.

Instead, the Mariupol garrison was said to have been “evacuated” to Russian-controlled territory. The images showed them unarmed and being frisked by Russian soldiers. But we are so caught up in a one-sided view of this conflict that we cannot even admit that they have capitulated.

Refusing to accept such an obvious reality is a sign of madness.

Personally, I have no idea what British interest is being served by slavishly endorsing the US policy of stirring up trouble in Ukraine and goading Russia into combat.

Maybe someone could explain it to me, over a plate of ‘Chicken Kyiv’ and a bottle of vodka. But for any debate to take place, we will have to start accepting that there are two sides to this argument.

Personally, I have no idea what British interest is being served by slavishly endorsing the US policy of stirring up trouble in Ukraine and goading Russia into combat.

Personally, I have no idea what British interest is being served by slavishly endorsing the US policy of stirring up trouble in Ukraine and goading Russia into combat.

We are so caught up in a one-sided view of this conflict that we couldn't even admit that they had capitulated.

We are so caught up in a one-sided view of this conflict that we couldn’t even admit that they had capitulated.

Was I being naughty when I asked last week for England to secede from the UK? Yes and no. I campaigned for years to keep Britain together and hated Blair’s ‘take back’. But it has happened now, and I don’t think it’s very English to passively wait to be stood up. I’d love to be there when Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford get the phone calls saying, ‘You got what you wanted. Independence begins at midnight tonight. England is back!

My spies at the BBC have uncovered another mystery in the Corporation’s archive. In 1990, they made a remarkable and prescient movie called The March, starring the luminous Juliet Stevenson. It depicted a great procession of poor Africans making their way to the Straits of Gibraltar, while European leaders discussed how to deal with their arrival.

The huge questions of how the rich world can help the poor world without destroying itself have been raised and not answered. But the drama showed, long before this happened, that the sea is no longer the barrier between Africa and Europe that everyone believed it to be. In fact, David Cameron’s thoughtless overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya provoked the very crisis that The March predicted.

You’d think the BBC would be itching to show something this amazing again. But, once again, there are no plans to make it available.

the joke is on us

I really like the rainbow helmet worn by Cambridgeshire Police Superintendent James Sutherland. I think all police should use them, always, in the future. He will remind us that while we hire the police to deter and fight crime, they prefer to do something else.

But in that case, why do they still think they have the right to take our money for doing it? Let them go private and see who will pay them for whatever they are doing now. It will eventually be understood that the only thing to do, if we want a real police force, is to create a new one and get rid of the monstrous and arrogant failure that has stolen the honorable name “police” from what it used to be. be a fine body of men and women.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens Click here

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More