Regardless of what you think about Trump, Putin or the Russia–Ukraine conflict, reporting objectively on any of these topics is what constitutes analysis. If the aim is to write an opinion piece, then label it as such — or join the Murdoch press and go for full sensationalism.
Once again, Laura Tingle disappoints. Not just because the framing of her “analysis” is lop-sided, but because we expect more of both her and the ABC. Now that the ABC is free of the conservatives’ razor, its journalists should be working hard to restore the ABC to something we might respect.
“Putin may laugh but Europe is taking Russian aggression seriously”
(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-29/ukraine-russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-european-war/106045656
)
is a textbook example of framing an issue to persuade readers that they should be frightened and, therefore, that we must prepare for war or at least deterrence.
No one should be laughing about the war in Ukraine. Estimates by The Guardian put the casualties at one million — one million lives ruined. Australia’s losses in Vietnam (fewer than 500) — while tragic and deeply significant — represent a tiny fraction of what a large-scale modern war inflicts when entire populations, not just military personnel, are involved.
Clear-eyed analysis can give us grounds for working towards peace. Fear-mongering simply heightens tensions and obscures what is actually happening on the ground and what might be done to stop the casualties.
But Tingle is not offering clear-eyed analysis. Instead, we are given strategic framing that demonises one side. The narrative arc is classic escalation framing; each section heightens risk and narrows the space for de-escalation.
Confusion about the peace plan, Putin’s rejection of compromise, Russia’s grievances, Europe’s fear, generals warning of imminent war, and a sense of unstoppable momentum — this narrative structure continually raises the emotional temperature. Phrases like “frantic scrabbling”, “shocked European nations”, “mess with our collective heads”, and “something has now been unleashed” build towards conscious or unconscious alarm.
Germany, Poland, France, and NATO are portrayed as shocked, frantic, issuing warnings and escalating rhetoric out of fear. Yet there is no attempt to investigate whether these warnings reflect internal political posturing, whether dissenting voices within European governments (such as Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany) urge moderation, or whether differing intelligence assessments make conclusions uncertain.
Western politicians’ language is also repeated with little criticism — “imminent threat”, “pre-war phase”, “last summer of peace”, “creating conditions favourable for potential aggression”, “lose its children”. These phrases indicate hysteria, not clear-eyed analysis, and should be recognised as such.
The combination of emotional language, selective quoting, narrative escalation, limited structural analysis, and a lack of balanced perspectives produces a highly alarmist framing in which Russia appears increasingly threatening, Europe increasingly fearful, Putin indifferent and unyielding, and a wider war close and unavoidable. Yet these conclusions are not strongly supported by broader geopolitical evidence.
How might Tingle have written this 'analysis'?
“designed to mess with our collective heads”, “confusion all round”, “frantic scrabbling”
→ “A leaked 28-point proposal created uncertainty among Western and Ukrainian officials as they sought clarification on its origins and implications.”
“the man around whom this story spins”, “through it all Putin said nothing”
→ “Putin initially offered no public commentary, consistent with his typical approach of withholding statements until positions are clearer.”
“flatten any expectations”, dismisses warnings as “laughable”, sticking to “hardline demands”
→ “Putin reiterated long-standing Russian conditions on territorial issues. His remarks indicate continuity rather than escalation.”
“shocked European nations”, “frantic scrabbling”, “alarming language”
→ “European governments issued a range of responses, from cautious warnings to longer-term strategic assessments. Not all actors interpret the threat level in the same way.”
“imminent threat”, “last summer of peace”, “Russia could attack within four years”
→ “Some German officials raised concerns about Russia’s future capabilities. These statements may reflect domestic debates about defence spending rather than assessments of imminent conflict.”
“pre-war phase”, “lose its children”, “preparations for war”
→ “Polish and French officials used strong rhetoric to emphasise national-security priorities. Such language may serve political or deterrent purposes rather than indicate immediate escalation.”
Ukraine’s “loss of dignity” and “loss of partner”
→ “Ukraine faces dual military and diplomatic pressures and continues to emphasise territorial integrity and dependable international support as core conditions.”
“reading tea leaves”
→ “Western governments are evaluating options, clarifying US policy signals, and coordinating responses. Policy differences are a normal part of international negotiation.”
Russia’s intentions as an expansionist threat
→ “Russia’s long-term ambitions remain debated. Intelligence assessments vary; some officials emphasise risks to bolster defence commitments. Objective reporting would reflect this diversity.”
If Laura Tingle wants to move beyond virtue signalling and attempt genuine analysis, a great deal would need to change.
If you are writing about Ukraine, NATO strategy, escalation risk, negotiation options or long-term outcomes, it is almost impossible to ignore RAND’s work without intentionally narrowing the analytic frame.
And if you want credibility in global politics, ignoring realist scholarship — especially Mearsheimer and Sachs — suggests an unwillingness to engage with the uncomfortable structural factors shaping the conflict. As Sachs notes, Europe’s lack of a coherent foreign policy makes negotiations extremely difficult: “Europe has no coherent foreign policy of its own, only competing national ones.”
Deutsche Welle has produced several high-quality documentaries on Europe’s fractured strategic identity, NATO’s internal divisions, the gap between US and EU foreign policy, Germany’s ambiguity on Russia and France’s push for “strategic autonomy”. This alone suggests that any “deal” with Russia is far more complex than Tingle implies.
If we want a convenient set of alarmist statements, we can turn on Sky News. It’s time for the ABC to step out of the Murdoch swamp and encourage Laura Tingle to do the deeper analysis that matters.