Manipulation without context: How The Economist distorts Ukraine's decolonization efforts
Adding to the critiques of my colleagues regarding the article, presumably written by the Russian editor for The Economist, Arkady Ostrovsky, I'd like to address its portrayal of the so-called "cancel culture" in Ukraine.
Ostrovsky published a one-sided piece in the Western outlet that fails to accurately represent the situation in Ukraine.
Even disregarding the fact that the article's central figure is Nika Vikniansky, an advisor on humanitarian issues to Odesa Mayor Trukhanov, and that other contributors lack a balanced representation of experts on decolonization, Ostrovsky's piece can be seen as a hallmark of irresponsible and biased (if not agenda-driven) Western journalism.
The article frames Ukraine's decolonization efforts as overly aggressive, branding them "cancel culture," while omitting the historical suppression of Ukrainian identity during the Russian Empire and the USSR.
It draws a false equivalence between Ukraine's removal of symbols of Russian imperialism and Russia's active cultural and physical aggression. Let's not forget Russian propaganda videos showcasing their immediate replacement of Ukrainian-language signs with Russian ones—something Ostrovsky fails to mention.
The piece claims that laws passed by Ukraine's democratically elected parliament, led by the Servant of the People majority, are tools of extreme nationalism.
Removing monuments is presented as erasing cultural heritage, ignoring their role as instruments of imperial propaganda.
At the same time, it overlooks the simple fact that monuments are being relocated to appropriate venues rather than destroyed.
The article creates a misleading comparison between Ukraine's cultural policies and Russia's imperialist cultural empire, failing to account for the asymmetry in power dynamics and historical oppression.
The claim that de-Russification polarizes society ignores the historical imposition of Russian culture as a dominant force at the expense of local identities.
By amplifying extreme voices, such as "language vigilantes," the article misleads readers into viewing the entire decolonization campaign as radical, distorting the democratic processes underpinning these efforts in Ukraine.
Personal stories, such as Vikniansky's ties to Odesa, are used to evoke sympathy, while the broader systemic context of imperial influence is ignored.
Terms like "cancel culture" and "ethno-nationalists" are deployed with negative connotations to cast Ukrainian policies in a poor light.
The assertion that Ukraine's efforts solely aim to erase Russian culture ignores their focus on restoring Ukrainian historical identity.
The article insufficiently contextualizes these actions within the ongoing war and the historical use of culture as a tool of imperial policy.
Manipulations in Ostrovsky's article:
1. Labeling decolonization as "cancel culture." This misrepresents Ukraine's efforts, reducing them to a negative framing that disregards the historical context.
2. Equating decolonization with a "purification" of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. A false equivalence that distorts reality, as these policies address imperial symbols, not individuals.
3. Claiming Odesa's decolonization is unique or unsupported. The article neglects the broad public consensus in Ukraine backing such reforms.
4. Focusing excessively on extreme voices. This creates the impression that the entire decolonization movement is radical, which is far from accurate.
5. Omitting the historical suppression of Ukrainian culture. Ignoring this aspect skews the narrative, making Ukraine's actions appear unjustified.
Frankly, I expected better from The Economist. However, this article demonstrates bias through selective representation, emotional undertones, and false equivalences.
While it raises important questions about decolonization, its manipulations and omissions significantly undermine its objectivity. A more balanced approach would consider the historical context, public support, and the power asymmetry between Ukraine and Russia.
