Descendants of Walter Duranty. How Ukraine can build good relations with the NYT

One of the most respected outlets in the United States likes to write fake stories about Ukraine. It is unpleasant. But given the history of some of its past stars, such as Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty, some bias against Ukraine is inherited. Mr. Duranty gained fame and notoriety for his exclusive interview with Stalin. He also denied the Holodomor in Ukraine. In general, he explained the repression of the "kulaks" (prosperous peasants) in the concentration camps of the USSR by "rebirth into a Soviet person." 

Duranty may be long gone, but the influence of his younger colleagues still persists. As of this writing, The New York Times has published an article discussing the "differences between the United States and Ukraine" regarding a counteroffensive. They suggest that the U.S. desires the Ukrainian Armed Forces to liberate Melitopol, but fail to mention the need for air cover and the delivery of promised weaponry, aspects crucial for high-intensity military operations, even as NATO's strategy recommends the deployment of F-16s, expected to arrive in Ukraine only by spring 2024.

Another lie concerned the shelling of a market in the town of Kostiantynivka on September 6. 

In their article, describing the circumstances of the deaths of 17 people as a result of a C-300 missile strike, the authors suggest that it was... the Ukrainian side. 

The homegrown Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple base their conclusions on the assumption that they have analyzed video from open sources and that passers-by are allegedly turning their heads towards the town of Druzhkivka. And from there, the Ukrainian military allegedly fired missiles in the direction of the Russians at the front in a few minutes. 

Interestingly, shortly before this article, the founder of the Conflict Intelligence Team, Ruslan Leviev (a Russian programmer and friend of Russian opposition leaders Navalny and Katz - ed.), analyzed the video from Kostiantynivka posted by Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and said that the missile could have come from the northwest, where the Ukrainian army positions are located.

Leviev immediately assumed that the missile was fired by a Ukrainian aircraft. Although he hinted at a tragic accident. 

But for some reason, this assumption immediately became the subject of an article by a certain Thomas Gibbons-Neff. By the way, he was twice deprived of his Ukrainian Armed Forces press card for violating the rules of work in combat areas.

Another very specific NYT article on the Ukrainian war was published in January 2023, during the period of the most intense attacks on the Ukrainian energy sector. In it, the authors write that the Ukrainian military used to fire anti-aircraft guns and small arms to shoot down some UAVs. However, now Russian troops have begun to carry out attacks at night, and they also rely on missiles fired from fighter jets and the ground. And that, they say, the price of some of the missiles used to shoot down Shahed drones is much more expensive. This caused a heated debate - does the NYT consider Ukrainian lives valuable? How much are the lives of Ukrainians killed by these Shaheds worth?

Likewise, the New York Times has shown a growing interest in exploring methods of supplying weapons to Ukraine. This was evident in their coverage of Ukrainian armored vehicles and the connections of former MP Serhiy Pashynskyi to Bulgaria. Additionally, there was a story from the American perspective involving Marc Morales, an arms dealer from Florida, which further fueled this discussion.

All of this may become the basis for heated debates about whether Ukraine should be helped as actively or not in the near future, when the United States gets involved in its own election campaign. Where the issue of billions for Ukraine will be at the forefront. 

Our politicians frequently exacerbate the impact of New York Times publications themselves, lacking an understanding of the nuances of dealing with Western media. It's a realm where mere statements from some public figures won't suffice. Instead, one must comprehend the intricacies, influences, and trends. It's inadequate to dismiss it as merely a Russian PSYOP or corrupt journalists.

The New York Times is one of the largest outlets in the United States. Its perspective on events in Ukraine reaches tens of millions of Americans. So just being reactive or pretending to be when there is a deliberate provocation, or an article where the backbone is made up of comments from good but Russians, will not work out well for us. We should finally think about a pool of professional and expert commentators, even if they get a rating and media recognition. And it is also worth finally recognizing that Ukraine does not have to be loved by everyone. But it should be respected and its opinion should be taken into account. The current government and our top communicators, who are used to treating foreign journalists the same way as our own, should work on this. This does not work in the Western world, where a number of people have discovered Ukraine for the first time as something separate from Russia. We may be prejudiced against the descendants of Walter Duranty's editorial board, but back then we had no sovereignty and were deprived of the right to vote. Now this voice must speak with confidence. And bend its own line, not ride on guidelines about the "hands of the Kremlin."

Exclusively for Espreso TV

About the author: Maryna Danyliuk-Yarmolaieva, journalist.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.