In a remarkable coincidence, media outlets across both sides of the Atlantic that constantly advertise their “independence”, took a visibly similar line on the war that was launched by Russia on Ukraine in early 2022. Whether because of a herd instinct or because dissenting voices were simply not permitted in the major western media outlets once the war started, reportage and commentary were uniformly triumphal.
In a short while, an exhausted Russia would retreat, and Kiev would retake control of territories that had been lost to it in 2014. A check of the writings of this columnist would reveal that at the very start of the war, it was his view that President Zelenskyy needed to (if only temporarily) accept the loss of control of territory in the east, rather than try to defeat the Russian armed forces in battle. While both President Joe Biden and then Prime Minister Boris Johnson were goading Zelenskyy to take on Putin, less emotional voices pointed out that the consequences of such a policy could be disastrous for what was left of Ukraine after the 2014 secession of Russian-speaking enclaves in 2014. Or that there was no way the Ukrainian military could push back the Russian tide, unless NATO joined in with them not as a supply depot but as fellow combatants. Zelenskyy understood this early on, and since then, has been trying to induce NATO to directly enter the war, whether by uncovering proof of Russian atrocities that had obligingly been left undisturbed by the withdrawing Russian forces, or by appealing to various legislative bodies in member states of NATO to enter the war directly in the interests of “saving Europe from Russian domination”. Given that Europe was far from a meltdown even when Ukraine was part of the USSR, it was no surprise that more and more individuals within the populations of NATO members began to develop doubt as to whether Russia was as brittle as the Biden-Johnson duo had assumed that vast country to be, or that Ukraine could get back the lands that had been lost to it after Russophobes took control of the machinery of state power in Kiev.
Someday there will be a rigorous examination of why Germany, for instance, weakened its own economy by depriving itself of Russian oil and gas, and standing by while the second Nord Stream pipeline was sabotaged. Evidently by the US, although expert after expert has sworn that it must be the Russians. Why Moscow would wish to sabotage its own project was a question that was not asked by “independent” western media. They all reached the same conclusion as to the culpability of Moscow in what was an act of war against the Russian Federation. Whether out of caution or fear or a mixture of both, thus far Vladimir Putin has refrained from going after low-hanging fruit such as attacks on the Baltic states designed to show the hollowness of Article 5 of NATO in the matter of going to war with a country that has one of the deadliest nuclear arsenals in the world. Judging by his unwillingness to match tough words against NATO with action, it seems clear that Putin would like to avoid a broader war, if he is allowed to. The Kremlin seems to be confident that eventually the souring of the public mood within NATO members would lead to a deceleration of the supplies of munitions that are going up in smoke every day in Ukraine. In about six months from now, President Biden may find himself unwanted by his party as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 elections. The reason will be what he thought would power him to victory, which is his wholehearted and hugely expensive support for the war being waged by Russophobes in Kiev against the Russian Federation. In contrast, Rishi Sunak’s vetoing of his Defence Minister’s plan of sending UK forces to Ukraine may yet save the British Prime Minister from the wrath of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
MDN