Absolutely extraordinary, we would say, criminal treatment of the event - a new low for the Guardian
You know, it's a holiday today, and we don't have time to get into the details of this article, but we assure you, we will, as will many others, because this is just waving a red flag.
A quick scan of the article, and the headline is enough. To the casual weekend reader, the takeaway based on the headline and a couple lead paragraphs - based on the headline, is, that both sides are equally guilty, and well, you know how these things are, it's a murky story with no clear blame due anyone...
What an outrage!
Here is some of the milque toast, "it's not clear who is really guilty" baloney from the author:
"In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine’s turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa. Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in.
"As the one-year anniversary approaches, multiple investigations have shed little light on events. There is not even an official list of the dead, and none of the pro-Ukraine activists involved have been put on trial. Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity. At least one participant formally accused of murder and attempted murder remains free while awaiting trial."
A couple of objections right off the bat. The author states that 48 were killed, when in fact this the number coming from one side and is vehemently disputed by the other side, which says the toll is twice that, something the author dismisses later in the article as a "swirling rumor". Completely biased, ridiculous, embarrassing reporting.
"Street battles culminated in a fatal fire." It's sort of like describing the Holocaust as, "You know, some political differences led to some people getting incinerated, tragic really, both sides are to blame...."
"Heroism on both sides" - mmm, yes, well, if you say so.
The article is full of this muck. It's a total disgrace.