Why is the word "defense" avoided in reporting and rhetorics around Ukraine?
Why is the word "defense" avoided in reporting and rhetorics around Ukraine?
I think that would be not only appropriate but also helpful to frame Ukraine as "defending their land" instead of "being at war". So why dont politicians and journalists primarily use this word?
You're viewing a single thread.
It also makes sense for good, honest journalists to use this language. Because they're trying to be neutral and leaving the opinion forming up to the reader, as far as they can. They want to let the facts speak for themselves. Even if they're pro Ukraine, they want the facts to convince you to be pro Ukraine, not their phrasing.
So, regardless of whether they're rage baiting, paid off by Russia, or trying to do honest journalists, it always makes more sense to use neutral language rather than having a pro Ukraine bias.
Saying it is a defense against invaders is being neutral, because that is what is happening. Avoiding a direct statement is the opposite of letting the facts speak for themselves.
Not quite, because there's also (justified) retaliation going on
That isn't what retaliation means.
What does it mean? I'm not a native English speaker
If someone attacks you and you hit them back immediately you are defending yourself agsinst further violence. If they keep attacking you and.you fight back multiple times you are still defending yourself. In warfare that might involve attacking their supply lines and even entrering the territory of the invaders to get them to stop invading.
In warfare retaliation would be attacking them a few years after they stopped invading or attacking non-military targets to 'even the score' or something like that. Israel bombing schools and hospitals in response to Hamas attacks would be retaliation, because they aren't just fighting back.
Ukraine hasn't retaliated in any coverage that I have seen.
Now do Israel 🐸