Dangerous Delusions Fuel Catastrophic Geopolitical Failures

There’s always something predictable about journalists like The Australian’s Greg Sheridan. His piece in today’s Oz once again demonstrates unwavering confidence, unfortunately matched only by a consistent lack of genuine insight.

Sheridan's analyses often reflect certainty without substance, leaving readers more amused than informed. But that’s what readers have come to expect from many media commentators in Australia and around the world.

Sheridan is emblematic of a broader crisis in Western media: a persistent refusal to acknowledge geopolitical realities outside simplistic and misleading narratives.

His portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a "murderous dictator" and his assertion that Ukraine could emerge victorious against Russia aren't merely factually incorrect—they demonstrate a profound and clownish misunderstanding of the dynamics shaping the current conflict.

The labelling of Putin as a "dangerous dictator" reflects a long-standing trope perpetuated by Western media. Objective and knowledgeable assessments, however, reveal Putin operates within a strategic security framework rather than personal tyranny. Putin’s actions in Ukraine are accurately seen through the lens of NATO's decades-long eastward expansion, explicitly violating assurances given to Russia following the Soviet Union's collapse.

Ignoring this context, Sheridan presents a distorted and simplistic view of complex geopolitical motivations.

Contrary to Sheridan's claims, Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) is neither failing nor leaving Ukraine poised for victory. Objective military analyses reveal a starkly different reality: Ukraine’s sustained losses in manpower and critical infrastructure are devastating.

Extensive depletion of Ukraine's military capabilities, combined with dwindling Western ammunition supplies and widespread logistical failures, starkly contrasts his assertion that Western support has significantly boosted Ukraine's position.

Sheridan suggests Trump's recent pivot towards resuming aid and pushing for a ceasefire somehow strengthens Ukraine’s position. Trump's approach deserves commendation for attempting to seek peace and recognising the war was facilitated by the US and NATO.

Trump's stance highlights the critical acknowledgment that the US strategically used Ukraine as a geopolitical battering ram to weaken Russia economically and militarily and aimed explicitly at undermining Putin. His willingness to bring an end to this devastating conflict is responsible and courageous, marking a necessary shift away from reckless interventionism.

Furthermore, Sheridan incorrectly suggests Russia’s intentions are primarily expansionist. Historical evidence clearly demonstrates Russia’s primary objective in Ukraine is strategic security—specifically neutralising NATO’s threat at its borders—rather than territorial conquest. This intent is consistently framed by Russian leadership, who regard NATO’s eastward push as an existential threat.

Sheridan’s analysis also suffers from profound ignorance regarding the roles of Western allies, particularly the US and Europe. He echoes Trump’s earlier criticisms of Europe’s insufficient defence contributions, overlooking significant increases in European military budgets since 2022.

What’s most egregious is Sheridan’s failure to accurately contextualise global perspectives. His narrative portrays Russia as isolated, yet globally, nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America have maintained either neutral or openly sympathetic positions towards Moscow, reflecting broader scepticism towards Western narratives and interventions.

Equally troubling is Sheridan’s conflation of support for Ukraine with unwavering backing for Israel. His portrayal of Israel as a deserving ally contrasts sharply with international recognition—including by leading human rights organisations—of Israel’s responsibility for crimes of apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank. Sheridan’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s globally condemned war crimes and genocidal behaviour reveals a biased moral framework, aligning neatly with Western exceptionalism and undermining journalistic integrity.

Additionally, his dismissal of criticism towards the Albanese government’s cautious defence budgeting underscores his misunderstanding of Australian strategic realities. Far from being "psychotic," Australia's measured approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of regional security dynamics, emphasising diplomatic engagement and cooperation over excessive militarisation. Sheridan’s implication of Australian neglect ignores historical lessons about catastrophic outcomes of militarisation-driven diplomacy.

Sheridan's oversimplification of the geopolitical landscape dangerously ignores the consequences of prolonged conflict. His failure to appreciate the humanitarian crisis inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians due to Western prolongation of an unwinnable conflict underscores reckless disregard for human suffering. By promoting unrealistic expectations of victory, Sheridan inadvertently supports policies that prolong misery and deepen instability in Eastern Europe.

Sheridan’s article demonstrates precisely how segments of Western media propagate oversimplified narratives detached from geopolitical realities. Putin is neither irrational nor solely expansionist; Ukraine is neither winning nor in a sustainable position; Israel’s actions are neither justifiable nor morally defensible. In stark contrast, Trump’s pragmatic and peace-oriented approach to Ukraine exemplifies responsible leadership. Sheridan’s perspectives reveal concerning disregard for accurate analysis, nuanced reporting, and geopolitical realities, underscoring exactly why Western journalism frequently fails its audiences.