The totalitarian media machine

Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba in conversation with U.S. President Joe Biden in the White House on 22 February 2022 (Wikipedia) – two days (or rather one day and a half) before Russia entered Ukraine in the early morning hours of 24 February. Kuleba now told the world: “Putin has just launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine”. After that, every media outlet would have to use these words, “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine” every time the war was mentioned. The journalists adapted to a hegemonic discourse or were catapulted out into silence. The language used originated from Washington and London.

[This article was originally written for the Norwegian quarterly Ny Tid (New Times), March 2024 and for a seminar “Media in the shadow of war” at the House of Literature in Oslo 24 February 2024]

The hubris of Western media

What an analyst can say on TV or in the newspapers is very limited, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Intellectuals I know have cancelled their newspaper subscriptions. Others want to keep a newspaper for breakfast regardless of the content because they always have. But they are also frightened by the incompetence of politicians and journalists who seem to live in a parallel universe. Those who have studied Cold War security policy for decades remain silent. Those who could have warned us have given up. During the Cold War, at least within the labor movement, the other bloc’s need for security was taken seriously. And now, everything is forgotten. But today’s arrogance and hubris among journalists, politicians, and officers will backfire. We can only wait for our hubris to be replaced by nemesis.

Since 2022, virtually every media commentator has claimed that Russia entered Ukraine to conquer land to restore the Russian Empire or the Soviet Bloc. Media believed in a Western victory: a liberation of Ukraine from the Russians as the Vietnamese liberated themselves from the United States or as Norway had succeeded in being liberated from the German occupation. And the more modern weapons that the West would give Ukraine, the greater the opportunity of Ukraine to retake lost land. So it was said.

But those familiar with US-Russian security policy know that this has little to do with reality. Nevertheless, it has been the only accepted narrative within the Norwegian media world. Whoever disagrees has been thrown into the periphery. The media system has become a totalitarian machine, a centrifuge, and whoever has brought up the obvious has been catapulted into silence. There has only been one opinion. We have to go back to Pravda during the Soviet period to find something similar.

But now something has happened. In recent weeks, many analysts have realized that a Ukrainian victory will never happen. The massive Ukrainian spring offensive first turned into a summer offensive and then continued as an autumn offensive. But Ukraine never succeeded in recapturing lost territory. On January 20, U.S. national security advisor Jake Sullivan and National Intelligence Director Avril Haines told top leaders in the Congress in “a private meeting” at the White House that Ukraine will run out of air defense and artillery. “Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks or months”. U.S. correspondents started losing hope. Some started to realize that Russia has a larger industrial base and much larger population, which in the final analysis will be decisive.

However, for almost two years, the media hope of a victory was presented as a real possibility, which had prompted the Norwegian government to give tens of billions to Ukraine in weapons support. But the more weapons we have given, the more soldiers have been killed without anything having changed on the battlefield. Today we know that Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of men, while the frontline is the same as a year ago. Everything the media told us turned out to be false. What is important to the U.S. was never a Ukrainian victory, but to “weaken Russia”, to quote U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians. Already in March 2022, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman said: “We [the United States] will fight to the last Ukrainian.”

A “full-scale invasion” and a “unprovoked war”

Today, we face a cruel reality for which journalists, commentators and politicians must take responsibility. Since February 24, 2022, virtually every politician and journalist in the West talking about the war, begins by talking about the “full-scale invasion”, the “unprovoked Russian attack” to “conquer Ukraine”. The term “full-scale invasion” has been used before, but since February 2022, this term has probably been used more often each month than it has been used the past 50 years. It was Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba who spoke early in the morning of 24 February 2022 about Putin’s “full-scale invasion of Ukraine”, and virtually every newspaper and TV-channel came to use Kuleba’s words the same day. Since then, almost every time the war is mentioned, one would start by speaking about “Putin’s full-scale invasion” to “conquer Ukraine”. The Guardian reported as early as February 2, 2022, that Washington and London predicted a possible “full-scale invasion” of Ukraine. In the early morning hours of February 24, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned Putin's “unprovoked attack” and President Joe Biden spoke later the same day of “Russia’s unprovoked attack”. All journalists used the same expression.

The latter term (“unprovoked attack” Ukraine) yielded more than half a million hits on Google, while the previous term (“full-scale invasion” Ukraine) yielded close to two million hits. These concepts have set the limits of the media narrative and accordingly the limits of the public discourse. Any deviation from this narrative will be washed away “like water off a duck’s back”. The media machine will centrifuge the experienced military historian and geopolitical scholar into the periphery and force him or her into silence. From day one, from the first hours of the war, so-called “truths” were established setting the limits for the public discourse. These “truths” were apparently put out in Washington and London. A few hours before the attack, Kuleba was in Washington meeting president Biden and Defense Secretary Austin. The trick seems to be to establish “a truth”, a hegemonic discourse, from the very first hours of the war and then make this discourse watertight against any criticism.

Provoking a war

The term “unprovoked Russian attack” is nothing but propaganda. As early as 2008, anyone who knew something about foreign policy, knew that an attempt to enlarge NATO to Ukraine would lead to a war. In Russia, it was seen as an unprecedented provocation. But Russia did not launch an attack in 2014, despite Ukraine’s importance to Russian security and despite U.S. direct involvement in the 2014 coup d’état against the democratically elected president. I was surprised about the Russian restraint. Intelligence analyst George Friedman described the 2014 coup as “the most blatant coup d'état in human history”. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gave clear instructions about who should be the new prime minister and who he should collaborate with. Despite this, Moscow was content to accept Crimea’s decision to join Russia, accept a limited support for the Russian-speakers in Donbass (but not their plea to join Russia) and last: one accepted the Minsk Agreement with Ukraine (after German-French mediation) to ensure Ukraine’s neutrality and territorial integrity and to ensure the East Ukraine’s right to practice their native Russian language.

The Minsk Agreement was even signed by all the members of the UN Security Council, but it turned out that the United States and Ukraine never intended to adhere to their signed agreement. Ukraine continued its war against the Russian-speakers in the East, despite its promise not to do it. In 2019 Ukraine added its intention to join NATO to the Ukraine Constitution, also in breach with the Minsk Agreement. Oleksy Danilov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security Council, said that the Minsk Agreement with a relative autonomy for the Eastern Ukraine would lead to “the country’s destruction”, while the U.S. finalized its eight-years built-up of Ukraine’s military strength. It goes without saying that Russia saw this as a threat to its existence. The country was faced with one provocation after another. Kyiv and Washington would not even comply with a written agreement signed by themselves and by the UN Security Council.

After this, Moscow lost all faith in the West. And it's hardly surprising that the Russians wouldn't give up their sovereignty, which would in practice be the consequence of allowing the U.S. to increase its military presence in Ukraine. What instead amazes me is rather that Russia did not attack earlier to respond to all these provocations. In other words, the narrative that Washington and London established on 24 February 2022 about an “unprovoked attack” was built on a pure lie.

But it has not been possible to talk about this in the major newspapers or on TV in Norway or the West in general. The Russian invasion was presented as if Vladimir Putin was longing for territory and for a greater Russia. Therefore, journalists and commentators have not understood why Russia continues the war despite huge losses. One does not understand why Russia never will accept a retreat.

When the war in Vietnam had cost the United States too much, the Americans left the country. And when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the United States too much, these countries were abandoned as well. Many in Norway have believed that Russia would do the same in Ukraine because it was believed that the war was something Russia itself had “chosen”, to quote U.S. Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. But for Russia, the war was not about conquering land, installing a Quisling regime or punishing an adversary. For Russia, the war was about denying the U.S. a military presence in Ukraine that would have turned Ukraine into a U.S. bastion close to Moscow, so close that Russia would not have the ability to defend itself. The Russians declared such a presence a threat to its existence. In other words, the country had “no choice”. So as the U.S. moved weapons systems ever closer to Russia, Moscow put its foot down. That meant that on the one hand, Russia would sacrifice everything to secure a neutral Ukraine, while on the other, the United States could leave Ukraine if the war would cost them too much.

Russia’s demand for a neutral Ukraine

Russia was satisfied with the negotiated Minsk Agreement. It was a guarantee of a neutral Ukraine and a guarantee of eastern Ukraine’s security and right to speak Russian. The fact that Russia accepted the Minsk agreement clearly shows that Russia had no interest in conquering Ukraine. It was Ukraine and the West that left the agreement, not Russia. If Russia had wanted to conquer Ukraine, it could have done so in 2014 after the Western-backed coup d’état. Back then, Ukraine did not have an army that could rival the Russian one. The Russians could have restored the old Soviet Union if they had wanted to. But they didn't. U.S. General Joseph Hilbert referred to his Ukraine counterpart saying: “The biggest mistake that the Russians made was giving us eight years to prepare for this [war]”.

Speaking at the invasion February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin said, “I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect and we will continue to act this way. We respect and we will respect their sovereignty. [...] However, Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat directed at us from Ukrainian territory.” And Putin added: “It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.”

Some people argue that Putin is lying and that he really wants to conquer Ukraine and recreate the Soviet Union. But one cannot deny that he defends the sovereignty of the post-Soviet states in his speech.

But let’s disregard Putin’s speech and his full support for “a neutral Ukraine” and instead look at the purely objective criteria: The invasion force of 170,000-180,000 men (according to General Milley) was not even one-fifth of the force needed to occupy Ukraine according to a Western rule of thumb: one soldier per 40-50 inhabitants. Yes, not even a tenth if we look at Russian practice (cf. Czechoslovakia 1968). Nor did the Russians begin the attack by air-bombing Ukrainian cities the way the United States used to begin its wars. Russia entered with a very limited force and almost without deploying its air force or navy. This was not a “full-scale invasion” of Ukraine. It was a clear signal to the West that Russia had no intention of conquering Ukraine. The term “full-scale invasion” is nothing but propaganda.

Despite what Putin said and despite what he did unequivocally pointed to the fact that he had a limited objective and no intention of occupying Ukraine, all journalists, commentators, and politicians in the West claimed that this is what he wanted to do (here we can add that a Quisling regime would also have presupposed an occupation, which Norwegians know very well). 

The March 2022 negotiations in Istanbul “were successful”. “We opened the bottle of champagne”, said President Zelensky’s military adviser Oleksiy Arestovych. Russia’s key demand was “a neutral Ukraine”, which Zelensky had accepted. “Everything else was cosmetic”, said Zelensky's chief negotiator David Arakhamia. But after that, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson travelled to Kyiv and told Zelensky that talks with “Putin the crocodile” were pointless and that the West would give Ukraine all the support in the war. According to Arakhamia, Boris Johnson said: “We were not going to sign anything”. We were going to “fight”. “Let's just fight”, he said. After this, Russia gave up its hope of achieving a Ukrainian neutrality through negotiations.

Following Ukraine’s refusal to negotiate, Moscow held a referendum in the predominately Russian speaking oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk and in the now occupied Kherson and Zaporizhia that linked the previous oblasts with Crimea. Their inhabitants did, for obvious reasons, support Russia (most people supportive of Kyiv would already have left). After that the parliament in Moscow decided to include the four oblasts as a part of Russia.

However, NATO membership for the Kyiv-controlled “rest-Ukraine” will never be accepted in Moscow, and as long as this rest-Ukraine won’t accept neutrality, Russia will keep the war going. And the longer the fighting continues, the more territory Russia will take, and the more Ukrainians will die. Ukraine’s losses on the battlefield are enormous. And the hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed must be replaced. In December, Zelensky said that the military leadership now wants to mobilize up to 500,000 new troops. But the parliament is against it. According to Arestovych, 4.5 million men have refused to even register. People from eastern Ukraine try to avoid being recruited to the war, and the newly recruited soldiers will not be well-trained young men. They will eventually be killed, while Ukraine loses even more land. It is, as Chas Freeman explained about the U.S. Administration in the introductory section: “We will fight to the last Ukrainian.”

The media centrifuge

In sum, we can say that TV channels and newspapers in the west speak of an “unprovoked Russian attack” and of a “full-scale invasion” despite the fact that this has nothing to do with reality. This was a narrative that was established in Washington and London in the early hours of the war and repeated by the entire media world. We must ask ourselves: how is it possible that the entire Norwegian, and most of the Anglo-American media world, could be bewitched by such propaganda?

We also need to ask: how could Western media just swallow the claims from the neoconservative propaganda institutes, like the Institute for the Study of War under President Kimberly Kagan and with her husband Frederick Kagan? We all know the Kagan family from two-three decades ago with Frederick, his father Donald Kagan and brother Robert Kagan and with his wife Victoria Nuland, who all pushed for the “Project for the New American Century” and for a war in Iraq and then, if possible, to continue that war. Why are the same people (Victoria Nuland, the very close advisor to Vice President Richard Cheney and wife of Robert Kagan), that pushed for the U.S.’ war in Iraq now waging Ukraine’s war against Russia? And how could the media disregard all the expertise available in the field? How could they trust obviously erroneous claims that have cost us Norwegians many billions of dollars and which have cost the Ukrainian people hundreds of thousands of lives? Those who bear responsibility for this and who have been instrumental in this campaign must at least consider what they are guilty of.

In the very few cases where a media commentator has touched upon the background of the conflict or has mentioned what Western politics would lead to, his or her words have been filtered away and the media centrifuge has thrown the critic out of the public eye. And the more significant those critics have been – prominent ministers or famous professors – the faster the centrifuge has rotated and the more brutally have critics been trodden down. No journalist would dare to interview such critics for several years. All critics know about these limits. In other words, we have got a perfect totalitarian system, the media has become a steam roller that flattens everything in its path. It is only when the disaster lies just ahead of us that we will raise the question of whether it was wise what we did.