Ukraine accuses NYT of spreading ‘Russian propaganda'
Kiev took issue with the July 12 story by Times journalist and photographer Nanna Heitmann, who described life in the Kursk region, which borders Ukraine. In August 2024, Ukrainian forces crossed Russia's internationally recognized border and captured the small city of Sudzha and dozens of villages, but were eventually expelled last April. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said at the time that the incursion was meant to acquire leverage for future peace talks.
'Whoever at Times thought it was smart to report alongside Russian war criminals made the dumbest decision. This isn't balance or 'the other side of the story.' This is simply letting Russian propaganda mislead the audience,' Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy wrote on X on Saturday.
Heitmann, who said she was at times escorted by the Chechnya-based Akhmat unit, took photos of Russian soldiers patrolling the destroyed villages, clearing mines, and helping to evacuate civilians. She spoke to locals whose homes were damaged by the fighting, and visited a shelter for evacuated civilians.
The journalist said she observed the bodies of civilians and soldiers, claiming that 'the uniforms visible among the fallen were mostly Russian.'
'Amid shattered homes, other bodies had lain decomposing for months, seemingly untouched, the circumstances of their deaths unknown,' Heitmann wrote. She reported that some locals criticized the government for not evacuating everyone in time, but mentioned that Russian officials denied these claims and said more than 150,000 people were evacuated from the region.
Ukrainian troops allowed multiple Western news crews, including CNN, France 24, El Mundo and Deutsche Welle, to accompany them during the incursion and to report from occupied Sudzha.
Moscow subsequently charged several foreign journalists with border violations. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the Western media of propaganda on Kiev's behalf and of covering up atrocities. According to Russia, Ukrainian troops massacred civilians in several villages, including Russkoye Porechnoye and Nikolayevo-Daryino.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump's ultimatum isn't an ultimatum – and Moscow knows it
US President Donald Trump has finally issued his much-anticipated 'important statement' on Russia. For days, speculation swirled, particularly among pro-Ukrainian circles, that the long-awaited U-turn was coming. Trump, they hoped, would finally get tough – perhaps inspired by the increasingly hawkish rhetoric of Senator Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, is designated a terrorist and extremist in Russia). Even sceptics began to believe that Trump was gearing up to show Moscow 'Kuzka's mother,' a famous idiomatic expression of aggression used by Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War But in classic Trump fashion, expectations were dashed. The supposedly 'extremely tough ultimatum' turned out to be something else entirely. Trump threatened tariff sanctions against Russia and its trading partners – but scrapped Graham's extreme proposal of 500% duties. Instead, he floated the idea of 100% tariffs that would only take effect after 50 days, if he chooses to enforce them, and if Russia fails to strike a deal. Trump also announced new arms deliveries to Ukraine. But these aren't gifts – they'll be sold, not given, and passed through European intermediaries. Supposedly, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems. Yet we soon learned the first of these deliveries won't arrive for at least two months – again, 50 days. And even now, basic questions remain unanswered. What exactly did Trump mean by '17 Patriots'? Seventeen batteries? Launchers? Missiles? If he meant 17 batteries, that's simply not plausible. The US itself only operates around 30 active batteries. Germany and Israel combined don't have anywhere near that many available systems. Such a figure would significantly boost Ukraine's air defences – but it's almost certainly exaggerated. Seventeen missiles? That would be laughable – but not unthinkable. Washington recently sent just 10 Patriot missiles in a 'military aid' package so modest it wouldn't suffice for a single battle. Seventeen launchers? That seems more realistic. A typical battery consists of six to eight launchers, so this would amount to two or three batteries – more than what Germany and Norway have promised to purchase for Ukraine. Yet even the Pentagon can't confirm the details. And one suspects Trump himself may be fuzzy on the specifics. His role, after all, is to make the pronouncements; others are left to clean up the mess. The so-called '14 July ultimatum' has already become a textbook example of Trump's diplomatic approach. In fact, a new phrase has emerged in American political slang: 'Trump Always Chickens Out' or TACO. The acronym speaks for itself. It refers to the president's habit in trade and security talks of making grandiose threats, only to backtrack or delay implementation. This appears to be another case in point. The negotiations are at an impasse. Trump still craves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he's reluctant to become too entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. So he's reached for the oldest trick in his playbook: the non-ultimatum ultimatum. This allows him to sound tough while giving Moscow space – and perhaps even time – to act. It also offers cover with his MAGA base, many of whom are frustrated by distractions like Iran or the Epstein scandal and aren't eager to see America dragged further into Ukraine. The genius of it, from Trump's perspective, is that it promises everything and nothing at once. No clear strategy. No detailed demands. Just an open-ended threat backed by ambiguous timelines. It's pressure without posture. Leverage without leadership. What's striking is that the White House didn't even ask Russia to de-escalate. There were no appeals to halt the almost daily strikes on Ukraine or curb battlefield activity. In effect, Russia has been handed a 50-day window – intentionally or not – to do as it sees fit. A quiet concession to the Kremlin? Perhaps. A careless side effect? Possibly. Either way, Moscow gains. America, too, comes out ahead – at least financially. Under the new arrangement, Western Europe picks up the tab for Ukraine's defence, while US companies get paid to offload ageing equipment. Trump's famed 'art of the deal' may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he's done it masterfully. Still, as a political manoeuvre, the outcome is more uncertain. Trump may believe he's found the sweet spot between hawks and doves, between NATO allies and nationalist critics. But trying to be all things to all people rarely ends well. Appeasement disguised as firmness satisfies no one for long. And while Trump plays for time, Russia holds the initiative. That's the real story article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Draft officers brutalizing recruits in Ukraine (VIDEOS)
Multiple new disturbing videos purporting to show extremely violent actions by Ukrainian draft officers surfaced online this week. The increasingly chaotic mobilization drive, overseen by the so-called Territorial Centers of Recruitment and Social Support (TCR), has been marred by widespread violence and abuse, with recruitment officials seen chasing recruits in the streets, brawling with them and onlookers alike, and even threatening civilians with military-grade weaponry. One of the videos, reportedly shot in the southwestern city of Nikolayev, purports to show draft officers trying to pack a potential recruit into an unmarked vehicle. The officers are seen violently beating their victim and repeatedly smashing him with the car's door. Another video, reportedly taken in the Black Sea port city of Odessa, shows a group of officers trying to pack a draftee into their bus. The man appears to be heavily beaten, with his clothes torn and stained with dirt. A fresh video from the city of Dnepr (also known as Dnepropetrovsk) shows a mass brawl between a group of teenagers and several men believed to be draft officers. The plainclothes TCR officials were confronted by onlookers as they attempted to pack a man into their unmarked vehicle, with the altercation promptly devolving into a fisticuffs. The civilians ultimately managed to overpower the officers and free the detainee. Ukrainian mobilization, launched early in the conflict with Russia, has grown increasingly chaotic and violent over the years. The effort has received the moniker 'busification', which describes the process of violently packing recruits into the unmarked minibuses commonly used by TCR officials. Kiev has long denied widespread violence and abuse related to the draft process, routinely dismissing it as 'Russian propaganda.' This April, however, the country's military admitted that its recruitment process has been marred by certain shortcomings. 'Busification is a shameful phenomenon, and we're doing our best to avoid it,' deputy head of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, Lt. Gen. Ivan Gavrilyuk said.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers
There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds 'freedom campaigns' through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who's really pulling the strings. Yet that's precisely what Britain's Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of 'democracy support' and 'combating disinformation.' Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn't be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless. This covert campaign didn't happen in a vacuum. It's merely the latest incarnation of Britain's longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – 'Russian disinformation,' 'violent extremism,' 'authoritarian propaganda' – but the machinery is strikingly similar. Only now, it's all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and 'evidence-based interventions.' Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia's near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers. A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow's narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren't setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn't wander into critiques of NATO or London's chosen regional allies. This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it's the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it's 'building resilience against disinformation,' it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that's undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently. It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn't the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn't London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries. In truth, 'disinformation' has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there's a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s. Likewise, 'freedom' in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain's worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it's what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc's approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation. This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural 'nudge' industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement. The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated. If that's what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.
