By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov faced tough questioning from Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker regarding Russia’s attacks in Ukraine. Welker cited numerous civilian casualties and targeted strikes on non-military sites like an American-owned factory and a kindergarten, pressing Lavrov on whether the Russian military had “terrible aim” or was intentionally targeting civilians. Lavrov maintained Russia’s claim of only targeting military sites, denying any deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure. Despite his denials, Welker highlighted the escalating civilian casualties documented by the United Nations, which revealed a significant increase in deaths and injuries, raising the risk for all Ukrainians regardless of their location.
Read the original article here
Russia’s Foreign Minister struggles to defend Ukraine civilian deaths is the central theme, and the responses paint a clear picture: It’s not a struggle at all, but rather a blatant and unapologetic denial. The sentiment is that Sergei Lavrov, the face of Russian diplomacy, doesn’t even attempt to grapple with the accusations of targeting civilians; instead, he resorts to dismissiveness, outright lies, and the deflection of blame. The consistent theme is a refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, a pattern that’s been seen repeatedly throughout the conflict.
The core problem isn’t a struggle, but a deeply entrenched mindset. The idea that Lavrov is “struggling” to defend the indefensible is challenged. Instead, the perception is that he simply parrots the official line – a line that completely disregards the reality of civilian suffering. Witnesses suggest the deliberate targeting of civilian sites like hospitals and supermarkets. This is presented not just as an error of judgment, but a calculated strategy.
The evidence, it’s pointed out, is readily available. While there is mention of dark web content, the point is that even without delving into the most obscure corners of the internet, disturbing videos and images are easily accessible on platforms like Telegram and Twitter. The atrocities are documented, and the claim that Russia is unaware or misinformed about the situation is completely dismissed. The point isn’t the difficulty of finding evidence, but the audacity of the denial in the face of such overwhelming proof.
A common thread is a sense of outrage that anyone would even attempt to defend such actions. There is a lot of negativity towards Russia and its current form of governance. The rhetoric suggests a deep sense of frustration. The language used is blunt and direct, with no attempt to mince words.
The tactics employed by Lavrov are seen as predictable and offensive. Rather than show any remorse, he’s portrayed as resorting to familiar strategies: denying the facts, accusing the West of spreading propaganda, and demanding proof despite a wealth of evidence. The responses consistently paint Lavrov as a master of deflection, a skilled propagandist who skillfully avoids accountability.
The overall picture painted is that this is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern. The general feeling is that dishonesty is not only accepted but encouraged within the Russian regime. This belief is further supported by the claim that lying is commonplace and that truth-telling is a foreign concept.
The implications of this behavior are grave. The denial of war crimes, the refusal to acknowledge civilian casualties, and the spread of disinformation all contribute to a climate of impunity. If those in power are not held accountable for their actions, it makes it much harder to achieve justice for the victims and to deter future atrocities.
The responses also highlight the international implications of this behavior. The claim that Russia has fingers in many governments suggests a dangerous level of influence. The need for caution and vigilance is emphasized. The general feeling is that the world needs to be extremely wary of Russia’s intentions and actions.
The conclusion, and the general sentiment, is one of profound disillusionment. The expectation is that Lavrov will continue to lie and deflect, and that Russia will continue its aggressive behavior. The overall tone suggests that the world must not only reject Russia’s narrative but also take concrete steps to hold it accountable for its actions.