In December, Mart Reimann, a tourism consultant, took an SUV, bought with money donated by Belarusians and refurbished in Estonia ready for combat, to a marine unit near Kherson. The grateful Marines had just returned from a mission across the Dnipro River the night before but showed him around the city of Kherson and the surrounding area for four hours.
Therefore, Reimann was very angry when, just a day later, on December 16, he discovered an article in the New York Times titled “Suicide Mission of Ukrainian Marines Crossing the Dnipro River.”
Reimann had heard the opposite from the marines – on the bridgehead created on the other side of the shore, the Ukrainians stayed overnight in the village of Krynk, where there were enough dry cellars. The main fight with the Russians took place in the reeds with automatic weapons, where the Russians feared the Ukrainians like fire.
Although the Russians bombarded the bridgehead with cannons, the Ukrainian soldiers spoke admiringly of how successfully and with small losses they managed to fight in small groups in the reeds.
On the other hand, the NY Times quoted a solider Maksym: “We sat in the water all night and were shot from all the pipes. My comrades died right before my eyes.”
The emotional quote was followed by a generalization: “Soldiers and marines who took part in the river crossings described the offensive as brutal and useless, because attacks by Ukrainian forces are repulsed on the banks of the river or even in the water before they reach the other side.”
In doing so, the NY Times referred to marines who had fought in the village of Krynk, 20 kilometers from Kherson. But Reimann had also communicated with men from the same village.
The above was an example of how even the world’s most reliable media channels, which have enough money and people to cover the war from the scene, can do so unwittingly, supporting the Kremlin’s narratives.
This particular New York Times story and stories like these are being amplified by thousands of other media outlets around the world who are unable to send their correspondents to the front. Unfortunately, the Estonian press also behaves this way.
Of course, the narratives of the Ukrainian War are most shaped by reality. Since last spring, Ukraine has reliably informed the Russian side that a powerful offensive is about to begin. Such an offensive narrative itself was necessary to scare the enemy, to paralyze the will of Russian soldiers to fight.
Last spring and summer, the Western press supported the Ukrainian counter-invasion narrative, looking for story after story to confirm it. And it was also confirmed in those cases where it was wishful thinking with hindsight.
If by October, it was clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive had failed, the narrative pendulum shifted to the other extreme. Representatives of the Western press began to look for confirmation of the failure of the counteroffensive in Ukraine. From there, they began to describe the entire activity of the Defense Forces of Ukraine as a series of failures and wrong decisions.
This unwittingly helped the Kremlin start building a counter-narrative that resonated well with the whole world at the end of last year. One part of this counter-narrative had its bottom: since the adoption of the next important aid package was blocked in the US Congress and the allocation of financial aid to the Ukrainian state was blocked in the European Union due to Hungarian opposition, the situation in Ukraine became worse.
However, the decisions of the US Congress and the European Council had no direct impact on the events on the Ukrainian front. Nevertheless, the war correspondents, or their editors in New York, Washington, and London, had a change of heart.
This information, which was interpreted in favor of Ukraine in the summer, began to be interpreted against Ukraine. Of course, the Kremlin continued its information operations to influence the public and political elite of countries supporting Ukraine. However the disillusioned Western press itself began to behave in a way that unjustifiably supported the Kremlin’s narrative and worsened Ukraine’s position in the information war.
A combination of two factors was at work: the Western press, which previously rather uncritically raised expectations for the Ukrainian counteroffensive, now began to look for Ukrainian weaknesses where they did not exist.
But in addition, unlike before, such messages from the Kremlin were certainly amplified, which fit in with the narrative “Ukrainian disaster in 2023.”
Indrek Kannik, director of the International Centre for Defense and Security, cites as an example that in the perspective of the last few months, the most absurd version of the Western press is the enhanced Kremlin version as if Russia is ready to immediately launch a new major attack on Kharkiv. According to some versions, even to Kiev.
“I would very much like to see with whom or with what?” wonders Kannik. “Surely these silly headlines contribute to the feeling in the West that Russia is all-powerful, and that it is better to make concessions and avoid the worst. Of course, I do not rule out that some anonymous officials of the West, who are afraid of escalation, spread it for the same purpose.”
So what to do? To be critical of the activities of the world’s best media channels in a situation where their claims are not watertight.
Let’s go back to the beginning of the story. Tourism consultant and geography doctor Mart Reimann contacted his contacts in the Ukrainian Marine Corps after reading the American newspaper. They confirmed that their experience was completely different from what the New York Times described.
Reimann didn’t lose his temper and sent specific New York Times quotes to his buddies in the Ukrainian Navy about the frustrating experience of getting drenched in water during a desperate mission.
“There was a concrete answer that there are enough dry places to stay and spend the night. As far as they know, no one in Krynk has ever felt the feeling of hopelessness and despair before or now,” said Mart Reimann, who, as a doctor of geography, followed the map to identify both the places where his sources of information stayed and the main battle locations. And it made sure that where the New York Times claimed the Marines were frustrated, morale actually remained high.
The article described in the story is waiting to be read here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/world/europe/ukraine-kherson-river-russia.html
