What you're doing here is interpreting any evidence as supportive of the conclusion you chose at the beginning. You're making that conclusion unfalsifiable.

If Russia said he died of natural causes, you'd say they're lying. Ukraine says the same thing, well this blood clot must be evidence of torture. Why Ukraine wouldn't jump on that interpretation if it was at all plausible is left unanswered. If he was struck by lightning you'd say Putin used him to test a new superweapon.

[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

This situation is interesting and IMO very revealing about Western media.

Russia hates this guy because he's a fascist and collaborates with the West against the ruling order.
Ukraine hates this guy because he's a Russian nationalist and supports the war and annexation of Russian-speaking Ukrainian territories.

So what does Western media do when those interests are at odds? Across the board, they put an enormous effort into supporting him.

What this reveals is that the interests of Ukraine are much less important to the US & its media apparatus than bludgeoning Russia. All the huffing and puffing about lives lost in Ukraine was not because they are mourning the loss of human life, but because it makes Russia look bad. This became a lot more obvious when they refuse to cover a far larger number of Gazan deaths with the same vigor.