Gray Lady's Coverage of Kiev Protests

Today is a big day in the ongoing drama of Ukraine's decision to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The expectation is that Putin will offer a no-strings-attached loan to the cash-poor Ukraine and no mention of joining the Russian customs union will be made. This will show the West in a poor light since its negotiators are driving a hard bargain and yesterday they abandoned talks with Yanukovich accusing him of negotiating in bad faith. David Herszenhorn has the story this morning, "Putin Is Expected to Offer Ukraine a Financial Lifeline."

Last month riots erupted in Kiev after Yanukovich declined to sign an association agreement with the EU. Since the police crackdown of November 30 protesters have occupied Independence Square and several government buildings. The Gray Lady is now referring to what is going on in Ukraine as a "civil uprising."

The New York Times per usual aligns its perspective with the U.S. State Department. Hence, when the Times posts a video by Matthew Orr about the pro-government rally that took place in Kiev over the weekend it had to include an interview with a pro-government rally-goer, a woman whose face is not shown, alleging that she was paid to attend and she accepted the money because she was jobless.

Two questions come to mind. First, how do we know that she is not a plant sent to talk to the camera from one of the political parties who are backing the protests? We are relying on the Times for her authenticity. My experience is to do so is naive. Second, why not take the camera among the protesters occupying the square to see if anyone is receiving a stipend for his or her participation. Surely some of the parties backing the occupation are paying some of their members. Why not interview them?

But the Gray Lady has to be careful. It can't go overboard in its partisanship. So you get a decent story like this morning's by Andrew Kramer, "Unease as an Opposition Party Stands Out in Ukraine’s Protests," about the prominent role in the protests played by the neo-Nazi Svoboda party. Svoboda bused in supporters as well. Were any paid?

In any event, 25 years after the Berlin Wall came down East-West conflict is again front and center. Russia has moved short-range Iskander ballistic missiles as far west as Kalinigrad on the Baltic. The move apparently is not a new one and not one the Western governments are unaware of. The announcement by Russia's Defense Ministry is aimed at increasingly pacifist Western public opinion. Andrew Roth has the story, "Deployment of Missiles Is Confirmed by Russia":

The Iskander deployment was disclosed amid a straining of relations between Russia and the West over political protests in Ukraine, a neighbor of Russia, that could determine whether that country signs an association agreement with the European Union or moves toward a customs union championed by Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. 

“All this comes at the same moment as Ukraine,” said Alexander Rahr, a political analyst and Russia scholar based in Germany. “While some politicians have collectively tried to start a de-escalation to the conflict, we are witnessing the opposite. We have been in confrontations about values, about geopolitics, and now we are in a confrontation about arms.” 

**** 

Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said that the disclosure would most likely make relations between Russia and the West “a few degrees more tense,” but that the news was probably not a revelation for foreign governments. 

“Kaliningrad is being watched by Western intelligence from many angles, so there are no surprises there for Western governments,” he said. “But Western publics will be sensitized to the fact that Russia is still there, that Russia has not totally disarmed, and that Russia remains, some people would say, the old new adversary.”

People are tired of the games that governmental elites play, like John McCain giving speeches in Kiev while unemployment benefits are cut at home. Russia is correct to point out the consequences of aggressive, destabilizing intervention.