American and European media continue to sympathize with Vladimir Zelensky. They are so sympathetic that they try to present his defeat as a victory. Or, in extreme cases, a draw.
The Norman-format summit held on December 9 in Paris ended with an unconditional victory for the Russian president. This was stated not only by Angela Merkel (personally to Putin on the way to the press conference - naturally, without much joy), but also a significant part of the real experts who conducted an elementary content analysis of the final communique.
Vladimir Putin managed to include a number of issues important for Russia there. This includes the withdrawal of troops on new front lines, and the opening of checkpoints on the demarcation line between Ukraine and the republics, and the law on special status (based on notes in the Minsk agreements, and not Ukrainian interpretations of this status - that is, in essence, the federalization of Ukraine) , and the implementation of the Steinmeier formula in Ukrainian law.
Kiev, on the other hand, was unable to include in the communiqué any of its hotels - neither “any federalization”, nor “morning border control and disarmament of militias - elections in the evening”. Even the paragraph on the admission of observers of the OSCE special monitoring mission to the entire territory of Donbass was adopted in the wording that suits Russia - observers will be allowed only to "fully fulfill their mandate." And since they do not shoot at the border between the republics and Russia, the OSCE has nothing to do there.
Zelensky's defeat happened for a number of reasons. Particularly because the international situation has changed: Europe is so tired of Ukraine and “conflict for the sake of conflict” with Russia that it is finally ready to take a more serious approach to resolving it by forcing Kiev into a political dialogue with the Donbass. Even if for now and careful enforcement.
However, the Western media, unlike experts and statesmen, do not see this change in reality or simply do not want to see it. A number of journalists admit a change in the West’s approach, but explain this not by strategic fatigue from Ukraine, but by some other tactical reasons. According to The Washington Post, American support was reduced due to Trump's specifics, German because of Merkel’s internal problems, and French because of Macron’s pan-European leadership ambitions and his desire to reset relations with Russia. In addition, according to Deutsche Welle, the position of the West was weakened due to a serious split between Europe and the United States.
Yes, all of them are generally satisfied with the summit - but rather not with the result, but with the very fact of its holding. They note the importance of resuming the negotiation process and even call the main achievement of the summit that it took place - for the first time in three years.
At the same time, the majority of mass media, as before, think in the category of deterrence, and not the integration of Moscow - which means they oppose the real essential content aimed at ending the Ukrainian civil war. For them, "concessions to Vladimir Putin, which would undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine and its territorial integrity, will not bring peace to either Ukraine or Europe - just the opposite."
The inability to understand and accept the essence of the process distorts their perception of reality and leads to an absolute misunderstanding of that very essential content. “Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine,” reads the headline of the most reputable The Wall Street Journal. A similar title was set by the equally authoritative British publication - The Financial Times.
And the claim to the "respected" media here is not that Russia does not fire in the east of Ukraine, which means that it cannot negotiate with someone about its cessation. We have long been accustomed to what the West calls the civil war in Ukraine the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The claim is that nobody agreed on any “ceasefire”. If we are talking about the formal introduction of a ceasefire, then it was spelled out in Minsk almost 5 years ago. If we are talking about the actual ceasefire, then it still does not exist and it has not appeared following the results of the Norman summit. The fault of President Zelensky himself, who admitted his inability to ensure the separation of forces on the entire contact line, did not appear - the parties agreed only on the separation in three sections, which will take as much as 4 months.
However, Zelensky’s guilt is not seen here - rather, Western publications tend to heroize his role. Imagine a kind of David, who went against the Russian Goliath. As noted by The Washington Post, "the comedian, who became president and does not have much political experience, opposed the prudent former KGB agent who has been in power in recent decades."
Yes, the Western media acknowledge Zelensky’s weakness and the Ukrainian president’s extremely narrow scope for maneuver. “Granting sufficient autonomy to the East and turning Ukraine into a federation is the red line for him, and allowing elections to be held before regaining control of the border will result in a rebellion by nationalists,” Bloomberg writes. Unlike the Ukrainian president, the Russian was absolutely free in his actions. And not only because, as stated in a CNN editorial, “he had nothing to lose, and, with complete control over Russian politics, he could successfully sell any result to society.” But also because Putin - and this is what Western journalists even recognize, and rarely between the lines - has an effective plan B in the form of the Transnistrian Donbas.
And this advantage of Putin over Zelensky is not a natural-objective factor - he is man-made and is the result of a competent and balanced Moscow policy. The narrow framework of Zelensky is a consequence of his hyper-watchful (if not cowardly) line regarding his own radical Ukrainian minority, defeated by him in the elections. But this creativity is not recognized by the Western media - otherwise, it will be difficult to explain to the Western viewer why he should root for the weak and cowardly president, who is afraid to take male decisions and end the civil war in his country.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.