But what about Zelenskyy, the “new Churchill”? On the plus side, Rickards acknowledges, he has “succeeded in presenting himself as a strong wartime leader, standing up to the big, bad Putin.” He’s telegenic, a fighter, and a PR genius. No wonder the U.S. Congress gave him a standing ovation. But he is also a complicated figure. As Rickards also notes, Zelenskyy is “a corrupt oligarch with millions of dollars hidden offshore. His acting skills have enhanced his propaganda efforts, but it doesn’t take much training to see how phony he is.” Moreover, “innocent civilians, including women and children, are dying under his failed leadership and inability to come to terms with Putin before the invasion began. In a nutshell, Zelenskyy bet on support from Biden and the West and lost.”
— Roger Kimball
Have you noticed that every, single one of these “conservative” columnists and commentators who are backing the pro-Russia narrative tend to stick to the same script? It’s a carefully-crafted prose (likely authored by Tucker Carlson) intended to sympathize with Vlad Putin without coming right out and praising him, while simultaneously vilifying Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to discredit him. Any news out of Ukraine that appears to paint Putin and his army as the bad guy in the fight is dismissed as “propaganda,” and any news out of Ukraine that appears to bolster the Russian cause is propped up as gospel.
These are people who will harshly criticize the U.S. government — including Congress and the White House — for taking a hard-line stand against Russia, yet drape themselves in the American flag come July and label themselves patriots. It reeks of hypocrisy.