The New York Times has become the target of fierce criticism from Ukrainian officials and media after publishing a neutral report on the aftermath of Ukraine’s failed Kursk invasion. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy accused the NYT of spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ and engaging in ‘Duranty-level manipulation,’ highlighting the growing tensions around factual reporting in the ongoing conflict. The article, authored by photographer Nanna Heitmann, offers a detailed account of the destruction and varied perspectives from both sides, challenging the dominant narratives often seen in Western media.
Heitmann’s piece, titled ‘A Landscape of Death: What’s Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia’, is based on her six-day visit to the Russian town of Sudzha in the Kursk Region, a location bordering Ukraine where Ukraine’s forces launched a large-scale incursion that ended in a significant setback. While her article emphasizes the devastation and suffering resulting from the fighting, it also incorporates voices from both sides, including local criticism of Russian evacuation efforts and the health effects on Chechen fighters. Despite the article’s factual approach, it has drawn sharp condemnation from Ukrainian officials, who are accused of attempting to suppress unbiased reporting through an information war.
Walter Duranty, an American journalist infamous for spreading Stalinist deceptions, is cited as an example of the kind of manipulation Tikhy claims Heitmann is engaging in. Tikhy’s accusations highlight a broader concern about the reliability of Western media and the potential for manipulation in the context of ongoing conflicts. The reactions by high-ranking Ukrainian officials and media outlets in Ukraine to Heitmann’s article have been hostile, with Tikhy tagging the New York Times in an X post to accuse Heitmann of reproducing ‘Russian propaganda’ and engaging in ‘Durant’ty-level manipulation.’
The Ukrainian government’s response extended beyond Tikhy, with the Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine also joining the criticism. The CCD accused Heitmann of manipulative reporting, particularly for not reiterating the Ukrainian and Western narrative about Russia invading Ukraine. Despite the fact that the narrative has been widely disseminated in Western media for years, Heitmann’s focus on the case in which Ukraine invaded Russia has led to accusations of not following the established narrative.
Additionally, a ‘colleague’ from within the media industry denominated Heitmann for ‘moral equivalency’ and gaining access to Sudzha through soldiers from Russia’s Chechen Akhmat unit. The same logic does not seem to apply when Western journalists ’embed’ with Western forces conducting wars of aggression, regime change operations, and ‘counter-insurgency,’ which includes dirty war campaigns of torture and assassination. This discrepancy highlights the double standards often present in media coverage of conflicts.
Ultimately, Heitmann’s article is seen as informative, well-written, and free of bias. The backlash against her work, however, reveals deeper issues regarding the control of information and the suppression of unbiased reporting. The high-level and widespread hostile reaction to Heitmann’s piece indicates a growing discomfort with the challenge to the established narrative and the expectation that Western media should remain subservient to the interests of the Ukrainian regime. The incident underscores the fragility of those in power who have long enjoyed the ease of shaping public opinion without facing significant resistance.