West Must Stop Its Unconditional Support For Zelensky – OpEd

Amid the Russia-Ukraine war, Nato and the European Union offer a perfect example of a type of “war communication”. In terms of censorship, disinformation and propaganda, the world is witnessing a replay of the happenings during the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

The only voices authorized to speak are those giving the official party line, Nato spokespersons, retired officers converted to the lucrative business of security consulting, geopolitical experts (those who stick to the script), Russia’s political opponents, Ukrainian deputies and other allies of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The mythification of Zelensky has reached absurdist levels, partly by the acting talents of Zelensky, a professional comedian who has shrewdly seized the moment to radically rebrand himself as a symbol of resistance, freedom and democracy.

Zelensky is a populist demagogue and a manipulator; an autocrat at the head of a regime that can best be described as proto-fascist.

With his demagogic cry of “the people against the elites”, his rudimentary electoral program, his false promises to fight corruption that were forgotten as soon as he was elected, and his brutal authoritarian leanings, Zelensky is a perfect example of western populism. 

The Kyiv regime also exhibits a growing number of proto-fascistic characteristics: the cult of the personality, which turns the head of state into a venerated and untouchable figure; the militarization of society; the saturation of media and cultural spaces with war propaganda.

Before the war, western media were recognizing the reality of that problem – but as soon as the war started, these groups were magically whitewashed as freedom fighters, and praised as heroic resistors through typical spin. Anyone who now raises the issue is immediately accused of disseminating Putin’s propaganda or being an agent of the Kremlin. 

Even more shocking, yet typical of war propaganda, has been the systematic censorship by dominant western media of any information that would undermine the Zelensky worship and unconditional support for the Kyiv regime. 

In a March presidential decree, Zelensky banned the opposition by suspending the activities of 11 political parties accused of having links with Russia. Thus, the invasion was used in the most cynical manner as a convenient excuse to crack down on political opposition through false rhetoric about collaboration with the enemy. 

Zelensky also invoked the war to eliminate media freedom by merging and nationalizing Ukrainian television channels into a single information platform called “United News” – a platform entirely dedicated to his propaganda.

Zelensky regime is controlled by the most hawkish and extremist escalationists, both Ukrainian and foreign, starting with US President Joe Biden, who has been shunting aside any talk of diplomatic negotiations.

Though at first willing to negotiate and compromise, Zelensky has since fallen in line with the most extremist war hawks, none of whom appear to care about the rest of Europe, which they view merely as something to exploit for more arms and money.

Instead of being emboldened in this reckless military escalation of a war that is devastating his own population and country, Zelensky should instead be pushed towards the negotiating table – for his own sake, that of his suffering people, and the good of the world, which is now itself suffering from a slew of setbacks: inflation, energy and food shortages, and a military-industrial complex ecstatic at the prospect of having trillions of dollars redirected towards it for years to come. A deal to end the war seems feasible, as there a reasonable peace plan on the table. 

In additional to all its other consequences, the Russian invasion has further fractured the US-led post-war global order, which has become a battleground between the ever-more hawkish and imperialistic US, backed by the EU and with the instrumentalization of institutions such as Nato and the G7; and the anti-western bloc led by China and Russia, now officially designated as the West’s two main geopolitical existential threats. 

Given the heavy dependence of Middle East on all involved parties – Russia, Ukraine and the West – for food and energy supplies, as well as national security, they know they have nothing to gain but a lot to lose from direct involvement in this conflict, or from overtly picking sides. They have thus uncomfortably strived to distance themselves from the war without alienating anyone – a tough balancing act that can see them accused of siding with the enemy for shying away from the western sanctions regime.

In fact, many have actively refused to side with Ukraine and the West against Russia for a number of reasons, including perceived western hypocrisy on the professed principle of non-aggression and respect for territorial sovereignty (Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan loom large here); racist double standards on the treatment of refugees; and widespread distrust of the West in general.