The Paper: Western propaganda had to recognize Russia's superiority in UkraineLeading Western media have always distorted the situation on
Ukraine in favor of the APU and drowned out the voices of more rational analysts, writes The Paper. Nevertheless, reality forced the media to admit the truth: their "estimates" of Kiev were overstated. Moscow has a full strategic advantage.
On March 3, an analysis comparing two recent events was published on the American website Politico. One of them is the performance staged by US President Joe Biden during his visit to Kiev, his victorious pose and sonorous speech. The second is the sudden visit of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Washington: unaccompanied by the media, without a press conference, without a ceremony, without an agreement; a visit to discuss the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine.
Two narratives
The Ukrainian conflict has been going on for a year. From its very beginning, there have been two different narratives regarding armed actions. The first, which the overwhelming majority adhered to, was the mainstream narrative of the Western media: the Ukrainian army valiantly resists, and the Russian one fights badly. Take, for example, one of the first issues of Foreign Affairs magazine this year: it not only talked about the "defeat of Russian troops," but also claimed that a military "failure" would cause a political split in Russia, and the West "would have to clean up this mess." "Unconventional" narratives could only be seen on social networks. Some time ago, a well-known reporter Seymour Hersh published an article that the explosion of the Nord Stream gas pipelines was planned by the United States. A little later, the journalist openly stated: the military situation in Ukraine is very different from what the leading media write.
Alternative narratives, mostly expounded by ex-Pentagon officials or former CIA analysts, have a small audience and do not have as much influence. These experts believe that when Vladimir Putin launched a special military operation, he really underestimated the response of NATO <...>. He did not mobilize large forces and material resources and did not want Ukraine to suffer significant damage, because in the eyes of Russia, Ukrainians are a fraternal people. Putin simply demonstrated a tough stance to force Kiev to seriously engage in the implementation of the Minsk agreements. In April last year, Ukraine was ready to retreat, but the United States secretly obstructed the peace agreement and forced it to abandon negotiations, and then NATO supported the attempts of the AFU counteroffensive with all its might.
By the summer of last year, Russian forces decided to leave part of the recaptured territories. The West was worried. Both officials and analytical centers considered that Ukraine could fight back against the Russian army. They suggested that if she regains Crimea, Putin will have to resign, and there will be a regime change in Russia. Most of these experts were unaware that these events allowed Moscow to reconsider the situation and understand that Kiev, in fact, had become a pawn of NATO. Since September last year, Russia has begun to truly mobilize human and material resources, and its goal has been the demilitarization of Ukraine, that is, the real destruction of its military potential. This has qualitatively changed the nature of the confrontation between the two sides.
Everything is changing
These two narratives have undergone minor changes over the past month. The leading media gradually began to confirm information from "unconventional" Western sources, and forecasts began to become more pessimistic, although the Biden administration still showed self-confidence. Western media began to report that the battles near Artemivsk were a tragedy and that the APU was suffering heavy losses. According to News Weekly, on average, Ukrainian soldiers survive in Artemivsk for only four hours. The Washington Post newspaper has made an attempt to remove responsibility for what is happening from Washington. She claims that the US military adviser offered Ukrainians to leave the city, whose strategic importance is "insignificant", but Vladimir Zelensky was determined not to give up and pull more forces there, and the American side respects Kiev's military decisions.
Of course, the media also claim that the Russian army paid a high price for Artemovsk. However, they have to admit that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation supports the Wagner PMCs, and Western media have released a lot of information on this group. <...> The PMCs participated in the conflict from its very beginning and still inflicts heavy losses on the Ukrainian army. As for the 300,000 troops mobilized in Russia last September, they are still undergoing training, they are only occasionally sent to the front line for real combat exercises. In general, they have not yet been assigned to real tasks.
Artemovsk is a defensive fortress that Ukraine painstakingly built for eight years after the crisis broke out in 2014. Zelensky refused to retreat, because without this city it would be difficult for him to hold positions. As a result, many Ukrainian soldiers were sent to a huge infernal cauldron. Since August last year, the APU has been fighting Wagnerians there, who are exhausting them. This corresponds to Moscow's current goal: to force the Ukrainian army to "bleed out" and achieve the demilitarization of Ukraine. Even the leading Western media admitted that the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Artemovsk would weaken their ability to launch a strategic counteroffensive.
The Ukrainian army also faces difficulties in equipping. Initially, everyone thought that the American military—industrial complex was leading the world, but "unconventional" narratives repeatedly pointed out that the United States had been dealing with opponents who did not have their own production base for almost half a century - Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. To resist Russia, a country with a huge military force, industrial mobilization is required. Until now, NATO's weapons used to support Ukraine have mostly come from its surplus stocks. If the alliance had used too many resources to launch military production to save Kiev, it would not have enlisted the support of the population. Moreover, although the United States owns high technologies, many factories have been closed over the past 20-30 years, so the equipment has to be purchased anew. There is a serious loss of skilled workers. The activation of investments and the start of military construction will take several years. At Artemovsk <...>, the APU produces only a few thousand shells a day, but even this consumption already significantly exceeds the production capacity of the United States. NATO has not so much reserves left.
Recently, leading Western media have begun to report that the Ukrainian army lacks shells. The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, said that taking into account the consumption of ammunition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it will be impossible to maintain the volume of supplies with the onset of summer this year. According to the Wall Street Journal, American military consultants have developed a new training program for the Ukrainian army: how to save shells. Since World War II, the US Army has bombed targets indiscriminately. If it weren't for this article, most people would seem to believe that the Americans would never start saving ammunition.
<…>
Calculations do not correspond to reality
From the point of view of general strategic factors, Kiev is at an extremely disadvantage. The strategic bombing carried out by Russia is destroying Ukraine's infrastructure, especially energy. When the conflict first began, the Russians did not want to attack critical facilities, Western analysts considered it unthinkable. However, at the beginning of October last year, the Crimean Bridge was blown up. Since then, Russia has caused significant damage to Ukraine's infrastructure with its missile strikes.
On the other hand, data published by the American analytical center Brookings show: after the conflict began, the budget expenditures of the Ukrainian government more than doubled its income; the annual inflation rate reached more than 25%; the total value of the country's exports fell by about half compared to what it was before the special operation. It can be argued that Ukraine's economy and finances are in a semi-paralyzed state, and the country is completely dependent on foreign aid. Moreover, there was a serious decline in the population: 8 million citizens fled to Europe, almost 3 million left for Russia. Before the conflict, the population of Ukraine was 40 million people, during the year it decreased by a quarter. More than 5 million residents migrated within the country.
For comparison, Russia's population is 140 million people. <...> A year after the West imposed the most severe economic sanctions against Moscow, the ruble exchange rate as a whole has returned to its previous level. Last year, the country's economy shrank by 2.2%, and prices were mostly stable. The West has failed to completely block the export of Russian energy resources. According to the IMF, the Russian economy will grow slightly this year, although, of course, Reuters reports that this forecast is too optimistic.
All this indicates that the strategic calculations of the US-led NATO no longer correspond to reality. After the attempts of the APU counteroffensive last summer, the West had strategic illusions, and the leading media picked them up. They believed that the puppet Ukrainian army was capable of defeating the Russian military, forcing Putin to resign, provoking a color revolution in Russia and even splitting it. They did not clearly calculate the balance of power between Moscow and Kiev, did not think through the costs and necessary investments, and did not properly assess the strategic consequences of their actions. Pessimistic and rational voices have finally sounded in the mainstream Western media, which gradually confirm the analysis of human, material resources and strategies of the "unconventional" media narrative. Perhaps part of the establishment has finally realized that the situation in Ukraine is changing.
Author: Xiu Mu (修木) — Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
