Skip to main content
Gifts from The Morning Star
How the media downplays Nato’s growth as a cause of the Ukraine war
A new report analyses how Western messaging during and after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine portrayed Russia’s motivations as pure, unprovoked expansionism — all in aid of prolonging the violence, explains IAN SINCLAIR
PEACE IS NOT AN OPTION: Prime minister Boris Johnson in Kyiv, Ukraine holds crisis talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in February 2022

WITH Russia and Ukraine seemingly trapped in a bloody stalemate, a new peer-reviewed journal article provides an important insight into the Western media’s reporting of the war.
 
Dr Florian Zollmann, a Senior Lecturer in Journalism at Newcastle University, has conducted a quantitative and qualitative content study of how the causes of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine were framed in the British, US and German press in the first two weeks of the conflict.
 
Zollmann, who is also the author of the essential 2017 book Media, Propaganda and the Politics of Intervention, notes two competing explanatory frameworks have been presented to the public.
 
The first is the official narrative pushed by Western governments and much of the news media: Russia is responsible, with Russian President Putin pursuing an imperialist and expansionist “Greater Russia” policy.
 
The second narrative, endorsed by high-level Western diplomats, many historians and some journalists, “suggests Western co-responsibility in the sense that Nato expansion provoked the invasion.”
 
Anyone who has opened a newspaper, looked at a news website or turned on the television since February 2022 will be familiar with the first framing. Paul Mason and other liberal interventionists have been vigorously pushing this line, calling for ever more US and British military support to Ukraine.
 
The second narrative is supported by a wealth of expert testimony. In 1997 George F Kennan, one of the most revered diplomats in US history, argued “expanding Nato would be the most fateful error of US policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
 
Zollmann quotes the respected cold war historian John Lewis Gaddis who, writing about Nato expansion in 1998, says he could “recall no other moment in my own experience as a practicing historian at which there was less support, within the community of historians, for an announced policy position.”
 
Likewise, when he was US ambassador to Moscow in 2008 the current CIA Director William J Burns warned “Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”

He continued: “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
 
And just last year Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg told the European Parliament that President Putin “went to war to prevent Nato, more Nato, close to his borders.”
 
So what are Zollmann’s conclusions? “Overall, the press across the countries [Britain, US and Germany]  …  emphasised frames that depicted Russian actions as an aggressive war to foster Russia’s imperial interests.”

At the same time, “the press de-emphasised frames that depicted Russia as a country with a national interest struggling against Nato expansion.”
 
The German press published the least number of articles critical of Nato’s role. Some questioning pieces did make it into the comment pages of the US and British press, though Zollmann notes “on a macro-level, such commentaries were scattered deviations from the dominant range of permissible opinion.”
 
This press consensus, Zollmann argues, “was facilitated by the fact that the Russian invasion was obviously criminal, reckless and unjustifiable” (elsewhere he notes it was “a crime of aggression” under international law).
 
Nevertheless, it’s a serious problem if the press downplays a crucial explanatory framing confirmed by the diplomatic and historical record.
 
Moreover, this memory holing has wider implications. Zollmann: “The dominant causal framing links to remedies that have been evoked to solve the conflict,” with Western governments and the news media focusing on military rather than diplomatic solutions.
 
The media’s war bias continues regardless of a December New York Times report noting Putin has signalled, through intermediaries, that he is open to peace negotiations on three occasions — in March-April 2022, autumn 2022 and September 2023.

The 95th Anniversary Appeal
Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
More from this author
The main entrance of The Guardian Newspaper office on York Way, north London
Features / 21 July 2025
21 July 2025

At the very moment Britain faces poverty, housing and climate crises requiring radical solutions, the liberal press promotes ideologically narrow books while marginalising authors who offer the most accurate understanding of change, writes IAN SINCLAIR

IS
Music / 14 July 2025
14 July 2025

New releases from Allo Darlin’, Loyle Carner and Mike Polizze

IS
Album reviews / 30 June 2025
30 June 2025

New releases from Toby Hay, Bruce Springsteen, Bonnie Dobson & The Hanging Stars

ILLEGAL FROM THE START: British commandos in the south east region of Afghanistan, May 2002
Features / 20 June 2025
20 June 2025

As the cover-ups collapse, IAN SINCLAIR looks at the shocking testimony from British forces who would ‘go in and shoot everyone sleeping there’ during night raids — illegal, systematic murder spawned by an illegal invasion 
 

Similar stories
THE OTHER UKRAINE: The Saur-Mogila Soviet memorial near the city of Snizhne in Donetsk Oblast has been massively expanded in Soviet style, while in other parts of the country, Soviet statues were torn down
War / 13 May 2025
13 May 2025

As Britain marks 80 years since defeating fascism, it finds itself in a proxy war against Russia over Ukraine — DANIEL POWELL examines Churchill’s secret plan to attack our Soviet allies in 1945 and traces how Nato expansion, a Western-backed coup and neo-nazi activism contributed to todays' devastating conflict

In this photo provided by Ukraine's 24th Mechanized Brigade
Features / 29 March 2025
29 March 2025
Detailing the deluge of delusion and dishonesty pushed by the pro-war camp, IAN SINCLAIR identifies four key tactics corporate journalists use to confuse audiences and suppress opposition to the proxy war in the east
United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks durin
Opinion / 18 February 2025
18 February 2025
By honestly telling Ukraine that it will not become a Nato member, Trump and Hegseth have opened the door to a possible end to the conflict but have also altered the political dynamic on both sides of the Atlantic, write MEDEA BENJAMIN and NICOLAS JS DAVIES
ARCHITECTS OF SLAUGHTER : Jonathan Powell (right)and Alastai
Features / 23 November 2024
23 November 2024
The British press has welcomed Keir Starmer’s new National Security Adviser without any mention of his deep, central involvement in the criminal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan — but history remembers, writes IAN SINCLAIR