Wretched US
Journalism on Ukraine
The U.S. news media has failed the American
people often in recent years by not
challenging U.S. government falsehoods, as
with Iraq’s WMD.
By Robert Parry
February 10, 2015 "ICH"
- "Consortium
News"- A basic
rule of journalism is that there are almost
always two sides to a story and that
journalists should try to reflect that
reality, a principle that is especially
important when lives are at stake amid war
fevers. Yet, American journalism has failed
miserably in this regard during the Ukraine
crisis.
With very few exceptions,
the mainstream U.S. media has simply
regurgitated the propaganda from the U.S.
State Department and other entities favoring
western Ukrainians. There has been little
effort to view the worsening crisis through
the eyes of ethnic Russian Ukrainians living
in the east or the Russians witnessing a
political and humanitarian crisis on their
border.
Frankly, I cannot recall
any previous situation in which the U.S.
media has been more biased – across the
board – than on Ukraine. Not even the “group
think” around Iraq’s non-existent WMDs was
as single-minded as this, with the U.S.
media perspective on Ukraine almost always
from the point of view of the western
Ukrainians who led the overthrow of elected
President Viktor Yanukovych, whose political
base was in the east.
So, what might appear to
an objective observer as a civil war between
western Ukrainians, including the neo-Nazis
who spearheaded last year’s coup against
Yanukovych, and eastern Ukrainians, who
refused to accept the anti-Yanukovych order
that followed the coup, has been transformed
by the U.S. news media into a confrontation
between the forces of good (the western
Ukrainians) and the forces of evil (the
eastern Ukrainians) with an overlay of
“Russian aggression” as Russian President
Vladimir Putin is depicted as a new Hitler.
Though the horrific
bloodshed – more than 5,000 dead – has been
inflicted overwhelmingly on the ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine by the forces
from western Ukraine, the killing is
routinely blamed on either the eastern
Ukrainian rebels or Putin for allegedly
fomenting the trouble in the first place
(though there is no evidence that he did, as
even former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger has
acknowledged.)
I realize that anyone who
doesn’t accept the Official Washington
“group think” on Ukraine is denounced as a
“Putin apologist” – just as anyone who
questioned the conventional wisdom about
Saddam Hussein giving his WMDs to
al-Qaeda was a “Saddam apologist” – but step
back for a minute and look at the crisis
through the eyes of ethnic Russians in
eastern Ukraine.
A year ago, they saw what
looked to them like a U.S.-organized coup,
relying on both propaganda and violence to
overthrow their constitutionally elected
government. They also detected a strong
anti-ethnic-Russian bias in the new regime
with its efforts to strip away Russian as an
official language. And they witnessed brutal
killings of ethnic Russians – at the hands
of neo-Nazis – in Odessa and elsewhere.
Their economic interests,
too, were threatened since they worked at
companies that did substantial business with
Russia. If those historic ties to Russia
were cut in favor of special economic
relations with the European Union, the
eastern Ukrainians would be among the worst
losers.
Remember, that before
backing away from the proposed association
agreement with the EU in November 2013,
Yanukovych received a report from economic
experts in Kiev that Ukraine stood to lose
$160 billion if it broke with Russia, as
Der
Spiegel reported. Much of that
economic pain would have fallen on eastern
Ukraine.
Economic Worries
On the rare occasions when
American journalists have actually talked
with eastern Ukrainians, this fear of the
economic consequences has been a core
concern, along with worries about the harsh
austerity plan that the International
Monetary Fund prescribed as a prerequisite
for access to Western loans.
For instance, in April
2014, Washington Post correspondent Anthony
Faiola
reported from Donetsk that many
of the eastern Ukrainians whom he
interviewed said their resistance to the new
Kiev regime was driven by fear over
“economic hardship” and the IMF austerity
plan that will make their lives even harder.
“At a most dangerous and
delicate time, just as it battles Moscow for
hearts and minds across the east, the
pro-Western government is set to initiate a
shock therapy of economic measures to meet
the demands of an emergency bailout from the
International Monetary Fund,” Faiola
reported.
In other words, Faiola
encountered reasonable concerns among
eastern Ukrainians about what was happening
in Kiev. Many eastern Ukrainians felt
disenfranchised by the overthrow of their
elected leader and they worried about their
future in a U.S.-dominated Ukraine. You can
disagree with their point of view but it is
an understandable perspective.
When some eastern
Ukrainians mounted protests and occupied
buildings – similar to what the western
Ukrainians had done in Kiev before the coup
– these protesters were denounced by the
coup regime as “terrorists” and became the
target of a punitive military campaign
involving some of the same neo-Nazi militias
that spearheaded the Feb. 22 coup against
Yanukovych.
Nearly all the 5,000 or
more people who have died in the civil war
have been killed in eastern Ukraine with
ethnic Russian civilians bearing the brunt
of those fatalities, many killed by
artillery barrages from the Ukrainian army
firing into populated centers and using
cluster-bomb munitions.
Even Human Rights Watch,
which is largely financed by pro-coup
billionaire George Soros,
reported that “Ukrainian
government forces used cluster munitions in
populated areas in Donetsk city” despite the
fact that “the use of cluster munitions in
populated areas violates the laws of war due
to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon
and may amount to war crimes.”
Neo-Nazi and other
“volunteer” brigades, dispatch by the Kiev
regime, have also engaged in human rights
violations, including death squad operations
pulling people from their homes and
executing them. Amnesty International,
another human rights group that Soros helps
fund and that has generally promoted Western
interests in Eastern Europe, issued
a
report noting abuses committed by
the pro-Kiev Aidar militia.
“Members of the Aidar
territorial defence battalion, operating in
the north Luhansk region, have been involved
in widespread abuses, including abductions,
unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft,
extortion, and possible executions,” the
Amnesty International report said.
The Aidar battalion
commander told an Amnesty International
researcher: “There is a war here. The law
has changed, procedures have been
simplified. … If I choose to, I can have you
arrested right now, put a bag over your head
and lock you up in a cellar for 30 days on
suspicion of aiding separatists.”
Amnesty International
wrote: “Some of the abuses committed by
members of the Aidar battalion amount to war
crimes, for which both the perpetrators and,
possibly, the commanders would bear
responsibility under national and
international law.”
Neo-Nazi
Battalions
And the Aidar battalion is
not even the worst of the so-called
“volunteer” brigades. Others carry Nazi
banners and espouse racist contempt for the
ethnic Russians who have become the target
of something close to “ethnic cleansing” in
the areas under control of the Kiev regime.
Many eastern Ukrainians fear falling into
the hands of these militia members who have
been witnessed leading captives to open
graves and executing them.
As the conservative London
Telegraph described in
an
article last August
by correspondent Tom Parfitt: “Kiev’s use of
volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the
Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s
republics’… should send a shiver down
Europe’s spine.
“Recently formed
battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov,
with several thousand men under their
command, are officially under the control of
the interior ministry but their financing is
murky, their training inadequate and their
ideology often alarming. The Azov men use
the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol
on their banner and members of the battalion
are openly white supremacists, or
anti-Semites.”
Based on interviews with
militia members, the Telegraph reported that
some of the fighters doubted the Holocaust,
expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and
acknowledged that they are indeed Nazis.
Andriy Biletsky, the Azov
commander, “is also head of an extremist
Ukrainian group called the Social National
Assembly,” according to the Telegraph
article which quoted a commentary by
Biletsky as declaring: “The historic mission
of our nation in this critical moment is to
lead the White Races of the world in a final
crusade for their survival. A crusade
against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
The Telegraph
questioned Ukrainian authorities in Kiev who
acknowledged that they were aware of the
extremist ideologies of some militias but
insisted that the higher priority was having
troops who were strongly motivated to fight.
[See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ignoring
Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers.”]
So, the current wave of
U.S. propaganda condemning a rebel offensive
for violating a shaky cease-fire might look
different if seen through the eyes of a
population under siege, being cut off from
banking services, left to starve and facing
“death squad” purges by out-of-control
neo-Nazis.
Through those eyes, it
would make sense to reclaim territory
currently occupied by the Kiev forces, to
protect fellow ethnic Russians from
depredations, and to establish borders for
what you might hope to make into a
sustainable autonomous zone.
And, if you put yourself
in the Russian position, you might feel
empathy for people who were your fellow
citizens less than a quarter century ago and
who saw their elected leader ousted in a
U.S.-backed coup. You also might be alarmed
at the presence of Nazi storm troopers
(considering the history of Hitler’s
invasion) and the prospects of NATO moving
up to your border with a possible deployment
of nuclear weapons. You might even recall
how agitated Americans got over nuclear
missiles in Cuba.
Granted, some of these
Russian fears may be overwrought, but the
Kremlin has to worry about threats to
Russia’s national security just like any
other country does. If you were in Putin’s
shoes, what would you do? Would you turn
your back on the plight of the eastern
Ukrainians? Would you let a hostile military
alliance push up against your borders with a
potential nuclear threat, especially given
the extra-legal means used to remove
Ukraine’s constitutionally elected
president?
Even if the U.S. press
corps fulfilled its obligation to tell both
sides of the story, many Americans would
still condemn Putin’s acceptance of Crimea’s
pleas for reentry into Russia and his
assistance to the embattled eastern
Ukrainians. They would accept the U.S.
government’s relentless presentation of the
Ukraine crisis as “Russian aggression.”
And, they might still buy
the story that we’re endlessly sold about
the Ukraine crisis being a premeditated move
by Putin in a Hitlerian strategy to conquer
the Baltic States. Even though there’s zero
evidence that Putin ever had that in mind,
some Americans might still choose to believe
it.
But my point is that
American journalists should not be U.S.
government propagandists. Their job is not
to herd the American people into some “group
think” corral. A good journalist would want
to present the positions of both sides with
some evenhandedness.
Yet, that is not what we
have witnessed from the U.S. news media on
the Ukraine crisis. It has been nearly all
propaganda nearly all of the time. That is
not only a disservice to the American people
and to the democratic precept about an
informed electorate. It is a reckless
violation of professional principles that
has helped lurch the world toward a
potential nuclear conflagration.
Investigative reporter Robert
Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the
1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America’s
Stolen Narrative,
either in print
here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com).
You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34.
The trilogy includes
America’s
Stolen Narrative.
For details on this offer,
click here