Lol, okay. Wikipedia and Reuters are not US government owned or even US-based media sources, and the wiki article is well cited by sources all over the globe. The US state department posts are just there as a tl;dr to be honest. But sure, any source that doesn’t align with your personal narrative must be biased propaganda. I note you didn’t actually address the point.
Wikipedia is incredibly NATO biased, if you will. The admins are all pro-West shills that manipulate any historical or geopolitical reference or material in their favour, to “rewrite” history as the “victors”.
As for Reuters, almost all of Western media is connected to either Council of Foreign Relations, annual Bilderberg conferences, NED or Murdoch news network, all of which is pro-NATO propagandist neolib/neocon garbage. Reuters is one of them.
Lol, okay. Wikipedia and Reuters are not US government owned or even US-based media sources, and the wiki article is well cited by sources all over the globe. The US state department posts are just there as a tl;dr to be honest. But sure, any source that doesn’t align with your personal narrative must be biased propaganda. I note you didn’t actually address the point.
Wikipedia is incredibly NATO biased, if you will. The admins are all pro-West shills that manipulate any historical or geopolitical reference or material in their favour, to “rewrite” history as the “victors”.
https://archive.is/E1GwQ
https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/14/exclusive-wikipedia-bans-7-mainland-chinese-power-users-over-infiltration-and-exploitation-in-unprecedented-clampdown/
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6ANVSSZWOGH27OXAIN2XMJ2X7NWRVURF/
As for Reuters, almost all of Western media is connected to either Council of Foreign Relations, annual Bilderberg conferences, NED or Murdoch news network, all of which is pro-NATO propagandist neolib/neocon garbage. Reuters is one of them.