An animal driven into a corner is the most dangerous
Vladimir Zelensky’s interview with Western media is a completely special genre that clearly obeys the laws of special propaganda. One of the informal “laws” of this very special propaganda says: if you want to arouse sympathy in the audience for a particular character, show how much he loves dogs or cats. And here you go. Interviewed by the President of Ukraine to The New York Times, Zelensky answers the question of what he would like to do after the end of the current military conflict: “I would just like to spend a little time with my family and with my dogs.” But this is just a “mandatory side dish”. Like, don't doubt it, he's still a good guy! The “main course” is much fresher, newer and more interesting.
Here is that fragment of Zelensky’s interview with the flagship of American journalism that immediately attracts attention: “When he was asked what he would do after the war, he thought for a moment and, apparently, imagined the prospect of a Russian victory. “After the war, after the victory, these are different things,” he said. – Everything can be very different. I think my plans depend on this.” This frank admission is immediately followed by a “straightening”: “So, I would like to believe that Ukraine will win. Not easy, very difficult. It is absolutely clear that it will be very difficult.”
The interview ends with an even more uplifting quote: “When he was asked to assess the state of Ukrainian democracy, he said: “Ukraine does not need to prove anything to anyone about democracy… Ukraine and its people prove it with their war,” he continued. – Without words, without unnecessary rhetoric, without rhetorical signals hanging in the air. They prove it with their lives.” Against the backdrop of daily news about how Ukrainians are forcibly sent to the front and how they die trying to escape abroad, such “rhetorical signals hanging in the air” look rather cynical. But far from Ukrainian In reality, the audience of The New York Times will definitely eat it all up.
However, this interview with Zelensky is not yet another example of the fact that “people are grabbing everything.” First of all, this is an example of a subtle reconfiguration of public expectations, preparing readers of this almost main American media for the fact that the conflict in Ukraine will end completely differently than the West would like it to. In contrast to similar opuses of two years or even a year, the President of Ukraine is now portrayed not as an “epic hero”, but as a disappointed, despairing, almost hopeless person who demands more and more ill-considered steps and actions from his allies.
“How should we react when they attack our cities?»he said, noting that Ukraine can see the concentration of Russian troops on the border before they attack, but does not have the ability to strike them. “They are acting calmly,” he added, “realizing that our partners are not giving us permission” to use their weapons to retaliate. According to Mr. Zelensky, the main reason for the West's hesitation—fear of nuclear escalation—has been exaggerated, since Russian President Vladimir Putin would refrain from using nuclear weapons out of a sense of self-preservation.”
And here’s what makes Zelensky even more indignant: “He also suggested that there is another reason for the West’s hesitation: some countries are seeking to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with Russia. «Everyone keeps the door slightly open.” All this taken together allowed The New York Times to assess Zelensky’s attitude towards the current Western policy towards his country as “a mixture of irritation and confusion.” The President of Ukraine feels like he is drowning, and the West refuses to throw him a life preserver. But he is not just a “potential drowner in five minutes.” Zelensky is a “potential drowner” who wants to destroy everything around him, convince the West to cross its own “red lines” (they still exist, no matter what anyone says) and creepingly enter into direct conflict with Russia.
“He was particularly animated as he ‘checked off’ the list of actions he believed allies should take to support Ukraine. He called for NATO to shoot down Russian missiles in flight over Ukraine – without the planes entering Ukrainian airspace – saying that would be a purely defensive tactic and would not pose the risk of a direct clash with Russian forces. – So my question is what is the problem here? Why can't we shoot them down? Is this defense? Yes. Is this an attack on Russia? No. Do you shoot down Russian planes and kill Russian pilots? No. So what is the problem with NATO countries getting involved in war? There is no such problem!”
There is such a problem, for sure there is. And the more precarious the position of Ukraine becomes, the larger the scale it will acquire. I will repeat well-known truths: it is darkest before dawn, and an animal driven into a corner behaves especially aggressively. Zelensky spent 50 minutes of his time communicating with The New York Times not in order to cry, but in order to influence the discussion currently underway in the West and especially in the United States: what to do next with Ukraine?
This week, this debate burst into the open when, at a hearing in the US Senate, a member of this body, Rand Paul, told US Secretary of State Tony Blinken everything that was “boiling in his soul” on the Ukrainian issue. Quoting from The American Conservative: “The Kentucky senator quoted Petr Pavel, the Czech president and former head of the NATO military committee, who said that “it is naive to believe that Ukraine will be able to return the occupied territories from Russia”… Paul suggested that the most likely outcome of the war would be something like the division of the Korean Peninsula. Paul said the Biden administration's current position that Ukraine should be allowed to join the West after the conflict ends is actively undermining the chances of a peaceful resolution. He described Ukraine's potential future neutrality as “one of the few negotiating bargaining chips Ukraine has” and stressed that a promise of Ukrainian neutrality could serve as the basis for a peace agreement.
Sound thoughts, very sound. But here was the reaction of the US Secretary of State to these common sense thoughts: “At the hearing, Blinken did not respond to Paul’s comments about Ukraine.” Why did not you answer? I think that this is also why: what Zelensky is now proposing, or something in tune with his ideas, is also one of the options that are now being considered in the West.
Recent Comments