© unknownFormer Israeli PM Naftali Bennett
As I noted in a previous article, the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed in a recent interview that in March of last year Western leaders blocked a draft peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

There seems to be some disagreement over exactly what he said, as the interview was in Hebrew. Based on the English subtitles on YouTube, I quoted him as saying, "They blocked it." But others insist he said, "They broke off negotiations." Either way, he clearly implied that the West stymied negotiations that might have led to a peace deal.

What's more telling is the reason he gave as to why the West did so, namely "to keep smashing Putin". This tallies closely with Roman Romanyuk's account of why Western leaders opposed negotiations in April:
"Behind this visit and Johnson's words lies much more than a simple reluctance to engage in agreements with Russia. The collective West, which back in February suggested that Zelenskyi surrender and run away, now felt that Putin is actually not as all-powerful as they imagined him to be. Moreover, right now there was a chance to "press him". And the West wants to use it."
As Caitlin Johnstone points out, it also lines up with what the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on April 20th last year:
"Following the NATO foreign ministers' meeting, it was the impression that ... there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don't care much about the situation in Ukraine."
So we now have a NATO Foreign Minister, a journalist with sources "close to Zelensky" and a former Israeli PM all saying that Western leaders opposed a peace deal because they wanted to "weaken", "press" or "smash" Putin.

These seem like newsworthy revelations, don't they? Not according to the mainstream media.

I checked whether the revelations have been mentioned by any of the following outlets: the BBC, CNN, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. With the exception of one op-ed in the New York Times which quoted Cavusoglu's statement, they've been completely ignored.

The point here isn't that there definitely would have been a peace deal if not for the actions of Western leaders. We can't know that. The point is: there's credible evidence that Western leaders stymied negotiations which might have led to a peace deal because they wanted to weaken Russia.

With the exception of Tucker Carlson and a few lesser-known outlets, why hasn't the media covered this? One of the current headlines on the BBC News homepage is 'Rihanna reveals pregnancy at Super Bowl show'. Which is more newsworthy: Rihanna's personal life, or the revelation that Western leaders may have sabotaged peace? I'm reminded of this meme:
pink box
A few days ago, in fact, a BBC Ukraine journalist got up and hugged Zelensky at a press conference. However much you support a particular cause, as a journalist you're supposed to show a modicum of impartiality. Based on this incident, I wouldn't expect any dramatic shifts in coverage.