The Western narrative about the Ukrainian Conflict shifted last year after the counteroffensive failed. Nowadays barely a week goes by without another critical piece about that country or its leader from a mainstream outlet. The New York Times (NYT) continued this trend in their recent article titled “‘It’s State Propaganda’: Ukrainians Shun TV News as War Drags on”, which discredited its state-financed news program. Here’s some of the negative coverage that preceded their piece since late October:
* 31 October: “Time Magazine Shared Some ‘Politically Inconvenient’ Truths About Ukraine”
* 5 November: “The New York Times Wants Everyone To Know About The Growing Zelensky-Zaluzhny Rivalry”
* 14 November: “The Western Public Should Heed The Former NATO Supreme Commander’s Words About Ukraine”
* 26 November: “The EU Confirmed That Over Half A Million Ukrainian Men Fled To Escape Conscription”
* 29 November: “Politico Just Dumped On Zelensky”
* 4 December: “Kiev’s Mayor, The NATO Chief, & The US’ Top General All Debunked Zelensky’s Delusions”
* 9 December: “WaPo Amplified The Arguments Of Ukrainian Draft Dodgers Right As Zelensky Wants More Conscripts”
* 11 December: “The Financial Times Blew The Whistle On Zelensky’s Lies”
* 12 December: “Ukraine’s National Security Council Chief Just Changed His Tune About The Conflict”
* 14 December: “Western Policymakers Are Panicking Because There Was No Plan B If The Counteroffensive Failed”
* 17 December: “There’s A Whiff Of Mutiny In The New York Times’ Report About Ukraine’s Krynki Debacle”
* 18 December: “The Walls Are Closing In On Zelensky As Politico Demands A Government Of National Unity”
* 19 December: “The Financial Times Is Spinning Ukraine’s Defeat As A Victory To Justify Freezing The Conflict”
It’s within this context that the NYT informed their audience that the “Telemarathon” program’s viewership dropped from 40% in March 2022 to 10% today due to the audience realizing that it doesn’t tell the truth about this conflict. In particular, it failed to prepare Ukrainians for the prolonged fighting that ultimately unfolded, instead serving them never-ending fantasies about Russia’s alleged weakness. This in turn contributed to growing frustration and fatigue among the population.
The purpose behind their piece wasn’t to dump on him like Politico did at the end of November, but rather to complement the narrative reform proposals that were first popularized by the Financial Times early last month, both pieces of which can be read in the hyperlinked analyses above. Whereas the first was practically mocking Zelensky for fun, the second genuinely wanted to improve his country’s perception management capabilities by suggesting that it drop the propaganda in favor of realism.
The latter’s piece was published when preexisting domestic political tensions, which had remained stable for the first 18 months of the conflict, worsened after the failed counteroffensive and Zelensky’s unpopular conscription drive in the aftermath of that debacle for fortifying the entire front. Not only did Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny emerge as Zelensky’s top rival, but his former one Poroshenko returned to the spotlight after being accused of a Russian plot, while others like Kiev’s mayor Klitschko rose as well.
Zelensky’s reaction to this development was to preemptively discredit any future protests as supposedly being connected to the “Maidan 3” that he claimed Russia is orchestrating, but this inadvertently served to divide his security services, though they still remain the country’s predominant force. Nevertheless, this newfound pressure upon him became so difficult to manage that an expert from the influential Atlantic Council think tank told Politico last month that he should form a “government of national unity”.
He’s yet to do so and likely won’t even consider this unless he feels that there’s literally no other choice, but the point in summarizing the events leading up to the NYT’s latest unsavory piece about Ukraine is to show how decisively domestic and international perceptions about him have shifted since late October. The first step to more effectively managing these on the home front at least is to finally start telling the truth about this conflict, ergo the purpose of the NYT’s latest piece if one reads between the lines.
Zelensky will probably never regain the popularity that he enjoyed at the opening stages of the special operation, but he can at the very least try to reconvert formerly active disillusioned supporters into being passive ones instead of actively or passively supporting his opponents. To that end, he must be more honest with his people, which entails completely reforming “Telemarathon’s” editorial line. The failure to do so will irredeemably doom his credibility in the eyes of a growing number of Ukrainians.
While this advice seems self-explanatory, it’s a lot easier to give than to implement, at least from Zelensky’s perspective. If state-financed news starts telling the truth about how badly things are going for their side along the front, then those pragmatic figures among their country’s Western patrons could pick up on that narrative shift and use it as proof of how futile it is to continue funding this conflict. If everything continues winding down, then the resumption of peace talks might soon follow.
He wants to delay this as long as possible because accepting any deal that leaves Ukrainian-claimed territory in Russian control would end his political career and ruin the legacy that he wants to build after it was revealed last summer that he rejected a much better deal in March 2022. He’s in a dilemma whereby admitting his country’s setbacks risks speeding up the resumption of those talks, while keeping up the charade risks worsening domestic distrust, which could pave the way for regime change.
Large-scale protests could be organized by his rivals, and this could serve as the pretext for Zaluzhny to attempt a military coup if the secret police don’t thwart either of these interconnected scenarios first. He can’t take their loyalty or capabilities for granted, however, hence why he might consider telling more of the truth. Regardless of whatever he does, those Westerners who read the NYT’s report now know that he was just full of hot air this whole time, which might make them sour on him even more.
