Ukraine in Western mass media: from skepticism to fascination

How is the Western public opinion about the events in Ukraine shaped? Obviously, first of all, through the reaction of journalists. Especially, when politicians are mumbling something unintelligible, or do not know what their opinion is. How do journalists look at Ukraine and what do they see here? Two editorials in influential American periodicals will help us find that out. An editorial article is a message a periodical prepares both for the society and the government, it is a tool for shaping the public opinion. This is the main conclusion of the editorial in the Washington Post of January 22 under a telling headline “The West Must Break Ukraine Free from Mr. Putin’s Grasp”: Yanukovych actions only intensify the people’s rebellion against the regime; Western governments “could be doing much more than they are to prevent a nation that was headed toward integration with the democratic West from becoming an autocratic Kremlin colony.” Then the paper boldly reproaches the EU and the American administration: “Demoralized European Union leaders seem to have abandoned Ukraine at just the moment they should be acting to stop Mr. Yanukovych’s repression... The Obama administration has been a little more active. But Washington also ought to recognize Mr. Putin’s role in attempting to impose his autocratic model on a country that has been struggling to become a genuine democracy.”

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE LOOKS AS IF IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A PRO-KREMLIN PROPAGANDIST

And now let us address the New York Times’ appeal (“Time for a Deal in Ukraine,” January 31). I will be honest, its editorial looks as if it has been written by a pro-Kremlin propagandist. So, according to NYT, Yanukovych “unexpectedly offered serious concessions to opponents camped out on the Maidan.” The protests continue, “but danger lies that way.” Further you will see a familiar pro-Yanukovych propaganda argument: “Yanukovych is the democratically elected president, and to oust him by street protests and without a coherent plan or united leadership would be a recipe for further turmoil.” So, the NYT editorial staff have not found either a plan or leaders among the protesters! And what does NYT offer to Maidan? It offers the following: protesters “should take his concessions seriously and join him (!) in seeking a suitable compromise.” At the moment when the world starts realizing that Yanukovych is not a solution, but a problem, a respected liberal paper encourages Ukrainians to bear with the regime they rose against.

A similar splitting of views can be seen in the German press. Die Welt sings in tune with NYT: Yanukovych was chosen in a free election, the opposition has already been in power, and there are no reasons to think it will rule any better; if it comes to rule again, “new riots will appear. Europe must understand this risk.” As if keeping Yanukovych in power does not present any risks at all! At the same time, Sueddeutsche Zeitung thinks that it is time for the EU to impose sanctions against Yanukovych.

Of course, the media field in the West is not limited to these two viewpoints, and you can find a lot of shades there. One can read overwhelmingly acute coverage and see precise understanding; one can be terrified at the degree of naivety and indifference. But nevertheless, the key periodicals that care about their reputation offer their readers a more or less adequate picture of the dramatic battles of Ukrainians for their freedom and dignity. Out of the European papers that I closely follow, The Economist, Financial Times, and Spiegel are an example of impartiality and understanding. However, I must indicate that I do not have an ability (and a task) to analyze a wide media field.

There is something common for many Western periodicals: they are worried over the matter of Ukrainian nationalism and its further evolution. Some papers try to see the complexity of the phenomenon of Ukrainian nationalism and its dependence on the process of Ukrainian nation-building. Others associate nationalism with anti-Semitism and Nazism only. Western journalists have no confidence in the abilities of the opposition leaders, the fact that the leaders try to follow the events rather than head the protest is emphasized almost everywhere.

THE PRESS SAID WHAT WESTERN LEADERS COULD NOT OPENLY SAY

Obviously, the mass media vision of Ukraine affects the Western society’s public opinion, causing mixed sentiments in it. On the one hand, we see sympathy towards Ukrainians in their struggle and fascination with their dedication. On the other, fears as to where the Ukrainian revolution is going to take everyone to in the future. Of course, the connection between the Western media perception of Ukraine and the way politicians see Ukraine is not straightforward, and it is hard to reveal the relationship between the cause and effect in it. Yes, in the editorial mentioned above, NYT tried to affect the views of the White House to some extent, and partially, it expressed the sentiments in Washington, D.C. But there is no doubt the leading Western media reflect the comprehension process that is going on in the Western political circles. Besides, it seems to me that until recently, fears and anxiety related to the events in Ukraine prevailed over all other feelings. And what NYT and Die Welt depicted here, the desire to see a compromise between Maidan and Yanukovych, was an optimal scenario for the major part of the Western political establishment. The press said what Western leaders could not openly say. Now it is obvious that Ukraine became a hard and unexpected revelation for the Western leaders. They did not expect Maidan at first, and when it happened, they did not believe it would last. When it persevered, they did not know what to do about it. Interfering is risky, because of Putin’s proximity. Not interfering is not right. And it is unclear what should be done specifically, because it is unknown whether the new government (and who will form it?) will be able to constrain the chaos.

But it seems to me that recently there have been some tectonic shifts in the West’s perception of Ukraine, first of all under the influence of the Western papers and TV channels. The West shuddered at the violence that flooded Ukraine. I am absolutely positive that all Western leaders have seen Dmytro Bulatov’s photos and been told what the man has been through. And now they are well aware that no other but the “king’s men” had a hand in his torturing. Now it is sheer shame to call Maidan to reach a compromise with Yanukovych. Moreover, such calls are detrimental to a politician’s reputation in the Western society.

RECONCILING MAIDAN WITH YANUKOVYCH IS INCONCEIVABLE

In a word, imperceptibly, but obviously the West is beginning to realize that it no longer can stand by and watch Ukraine sink. Reconciling Maidan with Yanukovych is inconceivable. No doubt we are going to see a change of spirit in the Western media. But the matter is that so far it is not clear whether the West will be able (or will have the time) to find leverage to influence the situation in Ukraine before it breaks out of control? And the most importantly, will the West be able to keep the Kremlin from its attempts to smother Ukraine (or a part of it) in its bear-hug?

Lilia Shevtsova is a leading research associate of the Moscow Carnegie Center