Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
📰 Financial Times wrote a major article for NABU’s tenth anniversary.
In short: over ten years the Bureau has become a force to be reckoned with. More than 60 MPs (not only current ones) are under investigation, the Attorney General resigned after the call-center case. The Head of the Office of the President, ministers, heads of central executive bodies — are suspects.
And last year’s attempt by the authorities to subordinate NABU only made the Bureau stronger.
💁♂️There is also a sentence saying that “some deputies” accuse the Bureau of politicizing cases — and that NABU rejects these accusations.
😱 And now what anonymous channels have made of this. Headline: “NABU’s work exerts indisputable political influence, — Financial Times.” From the whole article they took two fragments: the sentence about side effects and a quote from an anonymous MP about a “completely compliant parliament” and the “privatization of state companies.”
The article’s main thesis is discarded. The fact that NABU rejects the accusations is discarded. An anonymous deputy became “FT’s assessment,” and the publication itself was turned by the retranslator into the source of a verdict.
🤦♂️Then the typical network of SBU channels carried it on: 18:42–20:35, word for word.
📊 This already looks like a systematic approach by that back office, which works to discredit the anti-corruption agency. Already the third example in 18 days.
▪️26 August — The Economist and the “parallel government” (8 channels in 16 minutes)
▪️31 August — FT and “Fedorov — a threat of military technology leaks” (7 channels).
▪️12 September — again FT (3 channels).
📰The tactic is the same: find any critical paragraph in a Western article, remove the author and context, put the publication’s name in the headline.
In general, this is already the 12-th wave against NABU this month))) So you understand where the authorities are spending the money they stole)
Telegram publication
