I attacked you from behind with a club, and you hit me back, you evil monster.

 A little example of the cravenness of the Russian government, combined in perfect harmony with the willing collaboration of our own press, even the most supposedly respected parts of it, such as this article from the Washington Post:

"Russia accuses Ukraine of helicopter strike on Belgorod fuel depot...Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that President Vladimir Putin had been informed about the incident. He said it was “certainly” an escalation, adding: “This is not something that can be perceived as creating conditions comfortable for the continuation of negotiations.”

Oops, playing with matches again.

No word about whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place, a blatant war crime, could be perceived as "creating conditions comfortable for the continuation of negotiations,*”  or whether, as every sane person on earth knows, those "negotiations" are nothing but a cover for Putin's genocidal attack, which seems to be succeeding perfectly well in providing the mainstream press a way to "both sides" their way out of honest coverage by pretending that Ukraine has a sacred obligation to not fight back against Russia, lest they can be accused of disrupting what we all know are phony gestures from a warmonger who is in the process of trying (very badly, thank heaven) to remake himself in the mold of Hitler.

"If the attack is confirmed, it would mark an audacious and risky shift by Ukraine, with its forces shifting from a largely defensive posture to a direct airstrike on Russia at a time when the Russian military appears weakened."

Fighting back against an invader- a "risky shift" that might force our mighty arbiters of the flow of history here at the Washington Post to decide that you are the aggressors in this war, and you know that tens of millions of Americans (otherwise known as Republicans) are ready to enthusiastically join in the blame.  Because it is Ukraine blowing up a Russian oil depot that will prevent a wonderful resolution of these peace talks, and Russia invading Ukraine and killing thousands of innocent people is an entirely unrelated issue, of no moral or political consequence at all.  

And let us also note that, according to the Washington Post, there is apparently something deeply offensive in striking back at your attacker when his military "appears weakened."  The only fair thing to do, I guess, is to let him regroup for a while, under the cover of phony peace talks, so he can come back and kill tens of thousands more of your citizens.  I'd call this attempt to undermine the will of the world's people to stand up to Putin "insidious" if it were even subtle enough to be regarded as anything but a demand for Ukraine to give up before the Post's rich owner loses too much of his wealth.

“I’d like to stress that this facility is used to supply fuel only to civilian transport vehicles. The oil terminal has no relation to the Russian armed forces,” (an absolutely trustworthy spokesman from Russia, a country legendary for never stretching the truth) said."

That hospital in Ukraine, or the theater bombed with hundreds of refugees, or the city centers bombed out of existence, on the contrary, are apparently, legitimate military targets, which did not call for condemnation from the Washington Post based on the idiotic claim that they interfered with phony peace talks, which Putin would violate in a second as soon as he could, in another attempt to live up to the achievements of his apparent idol.

Peace Talks

Something that actually worked.

"While acknowledging an attack, Peskov asserted that Russia’s control over its own airspace was not in doubt."

No, of course not.  Having targets in your country bombed can hardly be construed as not having control of your own airspace.  

"The latest incident risks undermining progress in talks between the two sides aimed at reaching a peace deal, now at a delicate stage"

I repeat, the talks are not at a "delicate stage," because they are nothing but a ruse to try to make Putin somehow seem like less of a monster, while he continues his war of aggression any way he can.  And everyone, including the idiot writers at the Post know this perfectly well.

And let me just finish by adding what I know to be true, although it may be a step too far for some to accept:  This is simply one more attempt by the mainstream press in this country to deliberately confuse the good guys with the bad guys in Ukraine, for one reason only:  Like all of the rest of the Republican owned media, they are intent on denying any credit for anything that Biden does.  Biden has played the hand he was dealt here almost perfectly, so the only avenue open to them is to delude people about who is right and who is wrong in Ukraine.  

In a seemingly unrelated issue, in the last couple of days we have had very low unemployment numbers, a large number of new jobs added, and an increase in wages in many sectors of the working force.  We have heard about a $350 billion dollar reduction in the Federal budget deficit over what was left to Biden by the Republicans, and a plan to reduce the deficit by another trillion dollars.  The stock market, despite war and uncertainty, is considerably higher than it was under the miserable Trump.  But nobody seems to be interested in talking about all of that.  Instead, they harp day after day about inflation, something which is virtually beyond Joe Biden's control, and is currently being mainly caused by the usual Republican allies, hyper rich sociopaths and Trump's buddy Vladimir.  And so a President who is doing a fantastic job in practically every way, is regarded as a failure, while the treasonous, corrupt criminal that preceded him continues to be let off scot-free for all the damage he did. That is how our democracy will die in the next couple of years, barely surviving the one in Ukraine that people at the Washington Post would also not apparently miss.

*I suppose you could make the argument that if Ukraine had surrendered immediately to the Russian invasion, they would have not created conditions for negotiations to end the violence, so that would have been their fault too.  What do the people at the Washington Post think the negotiations are supposed to be about stopping?