Western media’s Ukraine war coverage shows prejudice against Russia, says British commentator Anatol Lieven

Anatol Lieven is a British author, journalist and policy analyst who has been tracking the Russia-Ukraine war closely since its beginning.

Note to readers: This is the fourth in a series of interviews with strategic experts on the implications of Russia's war on Ukraine that's ongoing for a year. You can read the rest here, here, and here.

As the long Ukraine war enters the second year the question uppermost in people’s minds is when and how this conflict will end. The American and European leaders have publicly stated their resolve to keep supporting Ukraine but there has not been any serious discussion yet on how to end the war. Anatol Lieven is a British author, journalist and policy analyst who has been tracking the war closely since its beginning. He is currently a visiting professor at King’s College London and a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington. He spoke to Pranay Sharma about the war and what to expect in the coming days. Excerpts:

Is there an endgame in Ukraine, and if so, what is it from the western perspective?

There are considerable differences within the West over the goal of support for Ukraine. Hardliners in the US and Europe, together with the governments of Poland and the Baltic States, would like to see Russia completely defeated and driven out of all the territory it has taken since 2014, including Crimea. They hope that this will lead to the fall of the Putin regime and the drastic weakening or even disintegration of the Russian state.

And the others?

Others, like President Emmanuel Macron of France, only want Russia to withdraw from the territory it has taken since the invasion began last year. The Biden administration, judged by recent statements from officials, is divided between different positions.

How about Russia, how does it see this?

It is difficult to say what Russia's goals now are since this is in the end the decision of one man. It is clear that they have been drastically scaled down as a result of the military failures and defeats last year. There are some indications that if Russia can take the whole of the Donbass region, where fighting is now concentrated, Moscow would settle for a Ukrainian treaty of neutrality and a ceasefire allowing it to hold on to the territory it actually occupies. That would be vastly less than Putin hoped to gain last February but would allow him to present the outcome of the war as some kind of victory.

Will this be acceptable to Ukraine?

At present, however, a deal along these lines would be completely unacceptable to the Ukrainian government and most Western governments.

Can a total defeat of Russia, as hardliners in the West are claiming, be possible?

A total defeat does not seem likely but it is possible. Morale in the Russian army appears low, and many new conscripts are barely trained. A collapse of discipline such as those that affected the Russian, French, Italian, Austro-Hungarian and German armies from 1916-18 is conceivable. More likely, however, is a stalemate, with only very limited gains by either side.

Seymour Hersh’s investigation revealed how the US sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline. Why was this grave crime played down in the Western media which has been covering the Ukraine war in detail?

The Western media as a whole has decided (and been pressured by Western establishments) into simply siding with Ukraine. It has given up any pretence of objective reporting or serious investigation and analysis. This is, however, not simply due to the Russian invasion. It is a tendency that has been building for years, particularly when it comes to prejudice against Russia.

Rhetoric apart, how significant was the just concluded Munich Security Conference for the Ukraine war?

The Munich Security Conference has become a propaganda arm of the US and NATO. It has no autonomous agency at all. This also indicates the degree to which Germany has become an impotent dependency on the US.

Is NATO’s mandate now to fight autocracies in Europe and elsewhere and install democratic regimes all over the world?

Despite their subservience to the US, most European states are too weak and cowardly to play an active role in supporting US military agendas elsewhere in the world. They can, however, be expected to give increasing rhetorical support.

Is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine turning nuclear still a possibility?

Complete defeat in Ukraine and the loss of Crimea would destroy the entire Russian strategic position in the Black Sea and Mediterranean, and end Russia's role and status as a great power. Faced with this danger, it is highly probable that Russia would escalate drastically in terms of threats to the US and the West. This would probably not begin with nuclear weapons; instead, Russia could, for example, act to disable US satellites or attack Western infrastructure in retaliation for the sabotage of Nord Stream, but such actions would begin a cycle of escalation that could very easily end with nuclear war.

Irrespective of the prevailing mood, Europe will have to find accommodation with Russia after the war. What kind of relations will they have?

At present, it is very hard to envisage anything but a long-term cold war between a US-dominated Europe and Russia. However, if the US were to stumble into war with China, and lose; or were to collapse into an internal conflict between Republicans and Democrats, then the West Europeans would be compelled to seek a new accommodation with Russia.