On June 4, 2023, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the kingpin of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, called for an all-out coup against the Russian Federation. This was a short-lived attempt, a mere “24 hours that shook the Kremlin.” As the events unfolded, Russian President Vladimir Putin was agile in his response to the domestic muddle that ensued. But Western news outlets were calculated in their media coverage of this situation. Check out this riveting title: “Putin Created a Beast, and Now He Has No Idea How to Rein It In,” a piece pulled from the New York Times. CIA Director William Burns hinted at the likelihood of some prolonged instability in Russia following this coup attempt. An Economist article suggests that Putin was left “dangerously exposed.” Meanwhile, CNN platformed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who stated that the Russian Federation was “crumbling” and that Putin’s response to this situation was a sign of critical weakness.
This is all to say that there has been absolutely no shortage in the Western coverage of the situation. But the reality of the matter was underwhelming. There was no serious insurrection in any sense of the word. At the beginning, it seemed like it had some fatal potential, then the events unfolded in a rather anticlimactic way. Yet Western news outlets were quick to call Putin’s government into question, and the strategic headlines fell into an interesting dialectic that divulges the propaganda at work. Is Putin “weak” because of his diplomatic resolution, or is he some ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator? It’s a difficult question for American and British publications. Which is more slanderous? It reminds me of Orwell’s concept of doublethink: the capacity to maintain two seemingly contradictory viewpoints, a deep-seated indoctrination that’s absolutely void of rationalism.
Oh, but you’d think that ideological politics disintegrate in favor of pragmatism and realpolitik right? Not for the West. Russophobia is embedded deep, and a comical example of this dogmatic daze is Europe’s blind loyalty to the United States. Consider the fact that Europe is buying more expensive oil from India that’s originally from Russia. This is kindergarten politics. It’s a meaningless allegiance that’s hurting their own people. Mass-minded disillusionment is costing Europe and it must rethink its priorities in order to avoid catastrophic downfall resulting from early tribalism.
Anyways, reference points are important so that we can remain honest. If Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, then so is every American president from the past four decades. But even Putin’s crimes don’t equate to the heinous wars that the United States carried out in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Who’s really bloodthirsty? We saw the Ukrainian flags. Where are the flags for these countries?
But what’s especially idiotic about the Western audience’s understanding of the war is their lack of context. The United States knew that Russia would invade Ukraine if they kept endorsing pro-NATO policies. Since it’s been a point maintained by leftists, I’ll keep it brief and point you towards a liberal American political scientist’s account of the matter. Essentially, the aggressive NATO metastasis proved to be an existential threat to Russia, which caused a reaction that was surmised by the West, and for good measure, as it allowed for a proxy-war to unfold.
The most important parallel I’d like to point to, though, is the fact that the French government and its legitimacy was never called into question during the latest protests and riots, which are significantly more chaotic than the dampened attempt of a rebellion in Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron has dismissed these riots as a result of “video games,” showcasing an unsurprising lack of critical thinking skills. In other words, while France is literally on fire, the Western lens decided it’s more productive to focus on a day-long tension in Russia.
Keep in mind that Russophobia is not contained politically — this bizarre xenophobic sentiment has been culturally sublimated. Media broadcaster Piers Morgan invited an Arsenal player on his show who said that all Russian and Belarusian players should be banned from the sport. The Ukrainian government carried out a performative banning of Russian literature; book burning, in general, has not been a “progressive” philosophy. Ten American states have banned Russian vodka. Tchaikovsky was pulled from a concerto and the Ukrainian Culture Minister called for an outright ban on his music. Given the rich and intertwined history of Ukraine and Russia, these cultural micro-wars are serving the Western political apparatus more than anything and they are severely misguided.
To really put all of this into perspective, let’s consider what anti-Americanism would look like. Should we ban all Americans from participating in the Olympics, given the unjust Iraq War? Or should we pull Gershwin from symphonic events due to the U.S.’ Syrian intervention? Would it be acceptable to burn Steinbeck and Twain in retaliation for the Vietnam War? The answer to all of these is probably not. But this liberal frolic trickles down from a larger ideological war that the West has been fueling since the Cold War — namely the vilification of Russia as an enemy state, something not too dissimilar to the Foxwood Farm and Pinchfield Farm in Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” ironically enough, with each farm representing Russia.
The threat that Russia poses is a real one, a threat for Western global dominance. But its rise is no coincidence. For far too long, the Global South has suffered from the neocolonial and imperial structures that the West has imposed on it. Russia has worked to provide developing countries with economic growth opportunities (consider BRICS, or the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Instead of accepting a multipolar world, the West is scrambling to maintain a loose state of control that will only result in direct consequences and meaningless confrontation if it’s not stifled. A new, humanitarian approach will mean that the United States acknowledges de-dollarization, the reconstruction of the East and other sovereign developments.
As events continue to escalate in Ukraine, it is vital for Zelensky to approach the negotiation table instead of spilling Ukrainian blood for American corporations. Idealistically, he’s painted himself as a sort of Messiah, a savior of his people — a narrative that’s been polished by the West. But reality could not be more different. Under the guidance of the United States, Zelensky has actively undermined peaceful pacts with Russia. Even after African leaders urged Zelensky to settle the conflict, he denied such prospects. Zelensky has gone so far as to say that the war won’t stop until Crimea is reclaimed (even though most of Crimea wants to be a part of Russia).
Lastly, Zelensky has also warned of a possible attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. If history’s any indication, this is probably pure propaganda. Remember the Nord Stream pipeline? Russia’s very own pipeline? When it was sabotaged, Russia was blamed, despite clear evidence pointing to the United States’ involvement. Or consider the recent news regarding Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine blamed on Russia. Putin has denied this and called it a barbaric attack, but that garnered no reports from the West because it compromises their anti-Russian manifesto. In sum, we should be especially cognizant of media coverage when it comes to the Ukrainian war. Arms are being sent recklessly and meanwhile, Ukraine is still losing (take the recent fall of Bakhmut). This ideological escapade is suicidal, and if Putin has presented peace negotiations that Zelensky has denied, we must seriously ask ourselves: Who is really bloodthirsty?
Ammar Ahmad is an Opinion Columnist from Damascus, Syria, and he writes about international politics and American culture. You can reach him at ammarz@umich.edu.