There are countless examples one could find. Western media outlets produce ‘analysis’. No doubt well-paid, often senior, journalists write lengthy pieces on the Ukraine war. But they are, basically, duping their readers. When politicians simply ape planned rhetorical lines which have no connection to reality it should be the job of journalists to pick those narratives apart. But what we get from the liberal press are articles which purport to be ‘analysis’, but which just repeat the same dream-sequences with a little bit of history or connective statements, to make it look like “analysis” is being done.
I like this piece in the New York Times, written by no less than 4 journalists. This is the theme of the “analysis”: “The deeper question now is whether he [Trump] is also abandoning America’s three-year-long project to support Ukraine, a nascent democracy that he has frequently blamed for being illegally invaded”.
You do just have to love “nascent democracy”. I think we can assume it is unconscious. It just reflects the position of liberal internationalists. A “democracy” means, for them, a vassal state in the US system, which adopts the values and ideologies of that system. In this sense Ukraine is a “nascent democracy”, (and, indeed, most likely to be a still-birth on the current trajectory). Since it became a country after the collapse of the USSR Ukraine has been struggling to find its direction. The reins of power have been exchanged between factions more eager for Western integration and those more inclined not to rupture relations with Russia. In 2004 Viktor Yanukovych was elected. Yanukovych is usually described in the West as a “pro Russian” politician, but, objectively speaking, his policy was more nuanced. He tried to maintain an even line; for example, continuing to take part in NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme, but not pursuing full membership. The 2004 election result was contested and the rerun was won by Viktor Yushchenko. In 2010 Yanukovych stood again for election and won, in an election described by the OSCE as generally free and fair. [1] In 2014 this elected President fled the country after demonstrators staged violent demonstrations in Kiev. A new government came to power on the back of these violent street protests. A plan by European countries to support a transition and new elections was agreed to by the opposition and then rejected in practice within 24 hours. The new government rapidly came to be dominated by extreme right-wing elements. [2] New Presidential elections were held and were won by Petro Poroshenko, though, by this stage large parts of the country, in the East, were not under control of the Kiev authorities. The split in the country had already happened, and voters in the East, who had been more supportive of Victor Yanukovych were no longer represented in Kiev. Zelensky won an election in 2018 very largely on a platform to end the conflict in the East via negotiations. He made sincere efforts to do just that and had a plan which Russia accepted and the OSCE endorsed for a referendum. This plan was thwarted by the extreme right-wing Azon battalion threating to march on Kiev and overthrow the government. [3] After that lost opportunity the course was set for war.
The story of Ukraine is not so much the story of a “nascent democracy” as of a country tragically captured by right-wing forces and eschewing the kind of democratic pluralism which could have kept it intact. (This is the main theme of Richard Sakwa’s book, Frontline Ukraine, Crisis in the Borderlands). “Nascent democracy” is a kind of, very characteristic, dreaming of the kind that, especially, US liberal internationalists (regime changers) indulge in. It is not “analysis” at all.
There is one other major distortion in this article:
But Mr. Trump discovered that he could not get peace at any price, because Mr. Putin rejected his overtures. Even after Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, declared that Ukraine would never join NATO and must abandon hopes of winning back all the territory that Russia had seized — two of Mr. Putin’s demands — it was not enough to get a cease-fire.
This was supposed to be “analysis”. Yes; parts of the US administration have made those remarks. But; there is no Treaty proposal – at least in public. These are just remarks. Much more to the point; while this seems to be a reflection of the sentiment of Donald Trump, the EU (the active war members of the EU) + UK + Ukraine bloc are very actively making a set of statements about how Ukraine will make no territorial concessions and will retain full “sovereignty”, which, implicitly, means the right to join NATO. For example, the UK government:
We are clear the bloodshed must end, Russia must stop its illegal invasion, and Ukraine must be able to prosper as a safe, secure and sovereign nation within its internationally recognised borders for generations to come [4]
Why would Russia base acceptance of a ceasefire on ad hoc comments by one party to the war suggesting readiness to meet some of their demands, while the other main party arrayed against them, including their primary opponent, are making staunch statements rejecting all of their demands, (and openly talking about increasing arms supply)? The article is sold as analysis. But, if this is analysis, it is fifth rate. And, (and this is my point); this is not unusual.
(There is the throwaway line about “Trump blaming the ‘nascent democracy’ for being illegally invaded” – which is so routine that I even lack the energy to comment on it. Though, of course, it is supposed to remind viewers that “Russia is the aggressor here”. Again, as so often, in the liberal media, even in pieces which purport to be “analysis” the argument proceeds by stringing together what students of language learning call “patterns” – set phrases which the user repeats without any understanding of the grammar behind them).
The rest of the article is not especially contentious. It records the obvious. The EU + UK is continuing on the war path, (though, of course the NYT does not characterise it so), and Trump is pulling back, and is possibly thinking in terms of possible business opportunities with Russia. (The NYT does not mention Trump’s repeated statements that he would like to see the bloodshed end, focussing, instead on characterising him as solely interested in business; a very typically liberal take on Trump). The article does not analyse why Trump’s policy of simply urging talks between Russia and Ukraine is not likely to be successful. (It does not take into account the non-negotiable nature of Russian demands and the fact they are winning on the battlefield).
I pick up on this because, while just two words “nascent democracy”, it is little tricks like this, (quite probably unconscious by the authors who believe their own fairy tales). which set a kind of narrative context which millions of people who do not read sources outside of the mainstream, especially liberal, media probably accept as their frame for looking at this war. A plucky “nascent democracy” fighting off the “aggressor” Russia. It might work as the plot of a Hollywood film. But it isn’t analysis.
Notes
- https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/51830
- https://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right
- “More menacingly, several Ukrainian nationalist militias, including the Azov Battalion that was then fighting in the Luhansk region of Donbas, compromises necessary … they preferred to fight than give one centimetre.’ The threat of a nationalist Maidan implacably opposed to any kind of compromise with the Kremlin had destroyed Zelensky’s attempt to bring peace in 2019 – and would remain a major threat to any future negotiated peace in the endgame of the 2022 war”. Matthews, Owen. Overreach: The Inside Story of Putin and Russia’s War Against Ukraine (p. 149). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/european-leaders-set-to-travel-to-kyiv-as-the-us-france-germany-poland-and-the-uk-call-for-30-day-ceasefire