It’s hard to explain anything to someone as one eyed as you but let’s try

A popular internet meme currently making the rounds claims without evidence that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is worth $1.4 billion – “more than Will Smith, Chris Rock, and Dave Chapelle combined.” The insinuation is clear. For Zelensky, a former comedian, to have accumulated a fortune of this size, there must be corruption involved. And while this claim has been parroted by its fair share of anonymous Twitter eggs, a number of blue checks have gotten in on the action.

Lee Stranahan, an American host on Kremlin-owned and controlled Radio Sputnik featured in the Oliver Stone documentary “Revealing Ukraine,” tweeted to his nearly 100,000 followers: “Why Is Zelensky a Billionaire?”

Forbes’ answer: he’s not. The Russian invasion has hit Ukraine’s billionaires hard. According to Forbes’ 36th annual World’s Billionaires List, there are only seven left in the country and Zelensky is not one of them (nor is former president and chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko, who dropped from the rankings this year).

But unlike his predecessor, Zelensky never was a billionaire. He’s currently worth roughly $20 million, based on reporting by Forbes Ukraine. Additional reporting by Forbes US puts that number at less than $30 million.

His main asset: an estimated 25% stake in Kvartal 95, a group of companies that produce humorous shows, which he transferred to his partners after being elected president, though he’ll likely regain his shares after leaving office. Kvartal 95 produced and owns the Servant of the People series, a popular political comedy starring Zelensky as a Ukrainian high school teacher who is elected president. Netflix, which previously streamed the show between 2017 and 2021, snapped up the rights again in March. With estimated revenues of $30 million annually, Forbes Ukraine values Zelensky’s stake at $11 million.

[Tweet Link]

Maybe it's just information that you don't agree with? I'm not suggesting that the link is bona fide, just that you, in particular, claim everything you don't believe is not valid in some way. How about discussing other opinions and ideas, instead of just off-handedly dismissing them? This is a forum for debate.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

And the provocation of expanding NATO further into the East, the catalyst of following events, is being lost in the fog of escalating conflict.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

You are not willing to look at the history of the region, what has been going on in the Ukraine in recent years, what diplomacy has happened and what internal conflict has already transpired but mainly you just want to treat Ukrainians as an over simplified block of victims under a blue and yellow flag.

I haven't looked at these links so I have no idea what is true to what isn't....which interpretation is the good faith one.

I think a general sceptical nature towards all media....somewhat ironically, especially the Guardian.....is just a factor of experience of the person who is bothered to refer back....because media rarely admits or tracks back on its mistakes - deliberate or not.

War obviously accelerates this tendency as does politics. However, unless the scepticism is coming from someone who actually cares about truth independent of bias, a truth independent of whether it supports their side or not....then also their observations need a certain level of scepticism as well.

For example, you yourself Maple have used and praised 'Al Jazeera' links and opinions on topics.... Qatar's state-owned Arabic-language broadcaster...just how objective and pro western are they compared to say Sputnik I might ask?

I think all of us have to be wary of being fooled by media. It reminds me of a passage in Matthew: 'why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' We are all in danger of that.

I think the person who is generally willing to dig behind more than just one narrative but multiple has a better chance of being more correct than most.

A truthful journalist is more likely than a network and honest versions of both are like gold-dust.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2022 9.31am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)