There is a tendency to believe that Russian president Vladimir Putin is orchestrating the unrest in eastern Ukraine, sending in irregular Russian forces to stir up pro-Russian separatist sentiment.
As guesses go, this might not be a bad one–but journalism is supposed to be about presenting evidence to confirm such speculation. The New York Times clearly has a hunch about deep Russian involvement in Ukraine. The ways it tries to confirm this hunch are curious.
Back in April, the Times got into some trouble (FAIR Blog, 4/23/14) with a “scoop” showing photos of people they claimed were Russian special forces and intelligence forces. A few days later, the Times was conveying skepticism about its own story–skepticism noticeably lacking in the original report.
But before long, the paper (5/4/14) was back on the case, reporting that “one persistent mystery has been the identity and affiliations of the militiamen, who have pressed the confrontation between Russia and the West into its latest bitter phase.”
The piece offered close look at one group of fighters associated with the People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic. “Moscow says they are Ukrainians and not part of the Russian armed forces,” the Times reported, while “Western officials and the Ukrainian government insist that Russians have led, organized and equipped the fighters.”
So what does reality say? The Times says that “neither portrayal captures the full story.” Then it goes on:
The rebels of the 12th Company appear to be Ukrainians but, like many in the region, have deep ties to and affinity for Russia. They are veterans of the Soviet, Ukrainian or Russian Armies, and some have families on the other side of the border. Theirs is a tangled mix of identities and loyalties.
If these fighters are Ukrainian, and veterans of–not active duty members of–the Russian armed forces, then it would certainly seem that Moscow’s explanation is closer to the truth than what “Western officials” are alleging about formal Russian control–unless there is evidence that they’re not sharing.
The Times‘ interest in this story continues. “Russians Revealed Among Ukraine Fighters” was the May 28 headline, but the story was less conclusive than that might suggest:
The scene at the hospital was new evidence that fighters from Russia are an increasingly visible part of the conflict here, a development that raises new questions about that country’s role in the unrest. Moscow has denied that its regular soldiers are part of the conflict, and there is no evidence that they are. But motley assortments of fighters from other war zones that are intimately associated with Russia would be unlikely to surface against the powerful will of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, experts said.
So the fighters raise “new questions” about Russian “role”–but there’s no evidence the fighters are Russian soldiers. But Putin has such a “powerful will” that “motley assortments” of fighters wouldn’t be there if he didn’t want them to be there–so say the “experts.”
As if that wasn’t curious enough, the Times adds:
The disclosure of Russian nationals among the fighters here muddies an already murky picture of the complex connections and allegiances that are beginning to form. While their presence does not draw a straight line to the Kremlin, it raises the possibility of a more subtle Russian game that could keep Ukraine unbalanced for years.
So, to recap: There is no evidence that Russia is in control of any of this, but the lack of such evidence may be a sign of a “more subtle” game.
And then, one more–this past Sunday (6/1/14) brought the headline, “In Ukraine War, Kremlin Leaves No Fingerprints.” In that piece, the Times reports that “eastern Ukraine is evolving into a subtle game in which Russian freelancers shape events and the Kremlin plausibly denies involvement.”
While “Putin may not be directing these events…he is certainly their principal beneficiary.” The Times also claims that “for now, at least, the strategy seems to be to destabilize Ukraine as much as possible without leaving conclusive evidence that would trigger more sanctions.”
Again, some–or even all–of this could be true. But the Times doesn’t seem to have the evidence to back up its claims of Russian management of the separatist movements or uprisings. The only time it presented anything that looked like such evidence, it had to retreat. Deep into the June 1 piece, the Times notes that a Russian investigative journalist thinks “does not believe that either Mr. Borodai or Mr. Strelkov”–those are the two separatists profiled–“is acting on behalf of the Russian government.”
What you’re left with from the Times is the suggestion that the lack of direct evidence is probably proof that Russia is up to something– i.e., “leaving no fingerprints.”
During the days of the Soviet Union, Kremlinologists spent their time poring over state propaganda in an attempt to understand what was really going on in the USSR. It bears some resemblance to what one might be seeing in the New York Times now.
Apparently, pimping a new Cold War isn’t dependent on presenting cold, hard facts.
Sounds more like the NYT is playing Inquisitor of the Inquisition. If you admit your doing it, then your damned; but if don’t admit it doing it, then your lying and damned for that.
One has to shake their heads at the ‘Lack of evidence=proof of wrong doing” line. I thought we got over that back in the “dark ages”, the NYT is sure not acting as “illuminating source”.
No doubt the NYT put as much energy, time and space into unearthing U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government a few months ago … just as it diligently exposes U.S. destabilization of Latin America. It’s unnerving how dedicated the Gray Lady is — page after page, day after day — to opposing sanctions on Venezuela’s elected government, for instance.
“probably proof that Russia is up to something– i.e., ‘leaving no fingerprints.'”
This reminds me of the US claim during the early years of the war against Vietnam, that although there was no actual evidence that Ho Chi Minh was a puppet of the USSR, that just proved that he was such a well-trained, willing puppet that there was no need for Moscow to control him directly, he did it all by himself. By contrast, the well-meaning, bumbling, good-natured US left all kinds of footprints behind its support of *its* puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, which was evidence that he was his own man, a bold independent nationalist figure whom we just had to help defend his nation against the Red Menace.
The sad thing, NYRB is no better . . .
Interesting how the NYT refused to publish a letter by Princeton Russian history professor emeritus Stephen Cohen about our impending coup against Yanukovich, as he chose the Putin bailout over the IMF “bailout”, a much better financial deal for Ukraine. There is nothing in the media about the U.S. overthrow of their government, catapulting us into a new Cold War, as NATO cozies up to their border. (Would we tolerate Putin overthrow of the Mexican government without taking back Baja California?) The looting of Ukraine by Western corporations and the IMF has begun, more austerity for the 99%, next they’ll be part of the Trans-Atlantic “Free Trade” agreement, TATIP.
This reminds me of the old joke about the man who comes home from a night on the town. His wife inspects his jacket and finds no female hair on it. So she accuses him of having an affair with a bald woman.
As president Putin said “they have proof ?” So far, the US which is the prime mover behind the Coup De’tat in Kiev and much of what goes on there since, has got 0 . proof of anything There are mountains of evidence that the US is attempting to provoke a war with nuclear armed Russia through its illegal actions in Ukraine and its attempts to incite violent insurrections in other republics of the RF…. John Kerry was fond of running around with his mouth agape, declaring that the US had “proof” of Russian “interference” in East Ukraine. So far he hasn’t been able to point to any….more recently he’s been hitting Poroshenko up for some ” hey man, got any proof yet” ??
Most interesting is that the United States leaves many fingerprints in the Ukraine, like Nuland’s infamous message, but the Times never explores them or suggests that they represent problematic outside intervention. We have a right to help them out, as we are good!.
Geez, Western media will stop at nothing to perpetuate the “Russia=evil, U.S.= good” narrative. I’m so tired of us vilifying everyone else, while ignoring our own atrocities.
The New York Times has been this way since it was purchased by Adolf Ochs in 1896 with JP Morgan’s money, and with Morgan’s mortgage on the Times Building. The face of The New York Times is “black with Morgan shoepolish” said Heywood Broun regarding its cover-up of the aristocrats’ aborted coup-attempt to replace FDR with a dictator modeled upon Hitler and Mussolini. You’re behind the times.