Who chooses the vocabulary that these Western media sources use to characterize the SMO? Is it the CIA or the Mi6? The BBC even using the same phrase as the United States: “Russia’s full-scale invasion.” Why is it “full-scale” all the time?
According to what I gather, they are unable to accept the fact that Russia is destroying the NATO war machine while waging an SMO (partial war) with only a portion of its mobilized troops. It’s like winning a fight while having your right hand bound behind your back.
Thus, the conflict is always “Full Scale.”
What? They’re no longer calling it “unprovoked” and “brutal”?
Since one lie in the west is founded on another, statements always reflect the views formed in NATO Headquarters and provided to journalists and editors in the media even prior to the commencement of the SMO. The slogan is “full-scale invasion,” similar to “weapons of mass destruction” used in Iraq. They lie by using the most emotive language possible, and when they write catchphrases for media outlets, the editor is able to infer which words the “NATO press officer” prefers to read in the upcoming editorial. A full-scale invasion would elicit strong feelings from people, whereas a 20% invasion to halt a genocide might not give enough emotions…
WtR