THE ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus is the progenitor of modern tragedy.

His innovative move away from a formal encounter between characters and chorus to a dialectical interplay between characters is the foundation of modern drama.

The 480-479 BC Persian invasion is the context which renders his observation that “In war, truth is the first casualty” — so apposite today.

It is sensible to believe nothing from any of the protagonists in the Ukraine conflict until verified — and this goes not only for Russia and Ukraine but also to the dominant media in Nato states and the global social media machinery whose ownership and control is vested in some of the richest capitalists in human history.

It is not simply that lies are told. Modern media manipulation is principally invested in the construction of the narrative and in the exclusion of any voices which contradict this.

Thus the Russian state suppresses any vestige of balanced coverage of the invasion of Ukraine, silences critical media voices and presents its own take on events.

The media in our country — and almost all voices in the Nato countries — make a great play of the brave people in Russia who take to the streets in opposition to the war while cancelling anyone over here who combines their opposition to Vladimir Putin’s invasion with criticism of Nato’s expansion and “strategy of tension.”

Predictably, Russia’s media operation has been rather unsuccessful in the capitalist West but substantially more effective in Africa, Latin America and much of Asia, where the democratic pretensions of Britain and the US and its allies are measured against direct experience of their imperialist character.

Over here outrage at the invasion has been constructed around an almost entirely illusory notion that Ukraine can win, is winning and that the Russian operation is faltering.

With a million refugees on the move, every shell that lands in a residential area makes it more difficult for Putin to sustain his opposition to Lenin’s insistence on sovereignty for the Ukrainian people.

If the Russian military strategy is oriented towards a political goal — rather than the destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure — and unless it entails the large-scale killing of its people, some semblance of fraternity between these two peoples might survive.

For all the horror of war, the Russian scale of operations can be distinguished from the West’s war on Iraq or the occupation of Afghanistan (in which Ukraine participated) but Putin’s vision of a single Slavic nation cannot survive this onslaught.

Discussion in military and intelligence circles is in marked contrast to the dominant media narrative. The mapping of the conflict shows a sustained Russian pressure from many directions with a classic operation to encircle and neutralise Ukrainian forces in the east.

If stalemate results in a negotiated withdrawal of Russian troops and a settlement which guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty and neutrality, so much the better.

When last tested, Ukrainians were divided on which way to go. Where some thought they had a free entry to Nato and the EU, which itself entails military mutual defence, they are beginning to realise the price of their illusions.

Keir Starmer exposed the limits of his political imagination when he told a Ukrainian journalist that he considered a no-fly zone viable. “We will talk to the government about that,” he said.

In these few words the Labour leader invested the demonstrably preposterous Tory Defence Secretary Ben Wallace — who pointed out that this means war with Russia — with gravitas and even added lustre to Boris Johnson’s statesmanlike pretensions.

Solidarity with the Ukrainian people is best expressed in this weekend’s Stop the War rallies.