In the space of a few months Ukraine has been embroiled in two uprisings. Both have appeared equally legitimate, both have been bloody and both have had the backing of differently aligned foreign governments. So why has the media characterised the US-backed one as a democratic right and the other as troublemaking by Russia?
When will the bloodshed of innocent civilians in Syria come to an end? Why should innocent Syrian civilians have to pay the price for violence that has been prevalent in the country since the uprising against President Bashar al Assad? The humanitarian crisis in Syria is at its worst as civilians are being left without basic human needs due to limited funds.
It was the worst natural disaster there in two decades. That, in a country where natural and human disasters seem the norm, is saying something - yet in a way that's part of the problem: so accustomed are we today to the view of Afghans as victims, it's becoming difficult to hear stories like that of Aab Barik and still be moved.
Syria has been, by and large, relegated from the front page to the 'World News' sections of quality papers. Politicians no longer mention the fate of that nation and its occupants - and, if they can summon up the courage, they do so in mundane statements, of the sort which bloodlessly assert how truly awful it all is.
Tony Blair, seen by some as one of the worst because of the so-called illegal and immoral war in Iraq, last week offered a stark analysis of Radical Islam, this century's "biggest threat to global security" on a par with environmental and economic challenges. The speech was derided by those who think that shouting warmonger suffices but merits close inspection.