You still haven't even outlined what your point is.
Again, I would think that linking articles that run counter to the emotional narrative being presented speaks for itself to a thinking person, but in your case I’ll make an exception.
Since you lack (or pretend to lack) reading comprehension skills or common sense, I will spell it out for you: there is much more to this story. The government, media, and big business cheerleaders are omitting facts to create their emotional narrative. A fool opens his mouth before he hears the whole matter.
Is it that you think the UN World Food Program would sexually abuse Ukrainians? If so, what evidence?
The first article provided the evidence; hence either you did not read it, or you are being disingenuous. Either of which is intellectually dishonest.
The fact that you seem to be downplaying the many and well-documented issues with UN corruption speaks to some sort of vested interest.
Do you think Zelenskyy is trying to take absolute power? If so, what evidence? Do you think a temporary ban on pro-Russian parties during an invasion by Russia is unjust?
Again, either read (or stop pretending to not have read) the article. It clearly states that the Zelensky administration is the only source for this claim that they are pro Russian, and they have provided zero evidence to support this claim - something that should be unacceptable, even in a time of war. In fact, a little digging would show actions from some of these groups that are decidedly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian.
But no, you just post two articles (one requiring signing up to read and a dubious source at that*).
*"The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."
Attacking the source, as though that negates the fact that it is based on and sources publicly available facts and data. More logical fallacies and disingenuousness from you.
And you haven't provided a clear position or argument to even debate. Just 'read the articles'. I'll admit that it was an ad-hominem attack on your motivations. Something I think is deserved if you don't even post your argument. If you are posting in bad faith, I think that needs to debated too. And I think you're trying to inflate it as an attack on character, which it is not. For now.
Again. If you are incapable of understanding a clear warning to withhold judgement until all the facts are known, that is your problem, not mine.
And your admitting to ad hominem, then defending it in the next breath betrays a complete lack of character.
If you are posting in bad faith
You are the only one posting in bad faith here. This statement shows either an astonishing lack of self-awareness, or a complete commitment to ignore new information. Either of which disqualify you from your self-appointed role as gatekeeper of the topic. You are simply not worth the time. Good day to you sir.