Honestly, the war coverage of the NYT and mainstream media in general has not been great. There is too much headline seeking in a long hard slog of peer competitor armies.
OP is a good article, but it’s about Russian society, not the war itself. It checks all the boxes that Russia is in fact a fascist state, but then for some reason doesn’t connect the dots and actually print it plainly.
For people actually interested in the war, stick to sources more used to covering military issues. The Institute for the Study of War has a superb daily briefing. The Drive’s section The War Zone does well, as does the Daily Kos. Or even OSINT communities on Reddit.
It’s much harder to take the Ruski mir seriously once you’ve seen enough mobiks with two days’ training being shot in a field filled with their own litter, knowing they would never send Muscovites to the front.
> The Institute for the Study of War has a superb daily briefing.
ISW has some signal, but it's also run by the Kagan family which has been directly implicated in contributing to this horrible mess (see other comments about Victoria Nuland).
Calling it "superb" given this enormous conflict of interest -- a bit much.
As I said, it has some signal but we must take their analysis with a huge grain of salt because they are closely associated with actual conspirators behind the conflict.
I have a hard time believing that the Biden administration got the US Senate to confirm a member of Putin’s inner circle to the US State Dept. But we have Lord Lebedev as an example that weird things like this do happen.
No political history of Ukraine is necessary to identify the conspirators behind the war, as you put it. The decision to invade was made solely in Moscow. It cannot have been otherwise.
> In 2022, he appeared twice on one of Russia government-funded top-rated shows, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory,[73] for which he was criticised by the Wall Street Journal.[74]
I am not sure id trust the opinion of a person who gets platformed by literal Russian propaganda on their opinion on Ukraine.
> Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism.
The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine.
It’s not “anti-intellectualism” to think that someone who went on the “we should nuke Ukraine show” to talk about how Ukraine should surrender, perhaps doesn’t have the most unbiased opinion about Ukraine.
> I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?
I don’t think they’re comparable really, the show that Jeffery Sachs gladly appeared on has content that is incredibly extreme and feels something more akin to propaganda then any tv I can think of in the west.
Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. And please avoid flamewars and tit-for-tat spats generally, as they aren't what HN is for and destroy what it is for.
Where did I ever employ ad hominem? Is identifying a conflict of interest forbidden now?
Sachs' appearance on a Russian broadcast is not remotely comparable to the fundamental participation of the Kagans in both ISW and the Ukraine crisis.
You ought to reflect on the fact that you outright reject everything Sachs has to say because he appeared on the wrong TV channel, yet you give me flack for only tepidly endorsing warmonger-run ISW. Is that the kind of toxic monoculture you want to perpetuate on HN?
I have never said anything about Sachs one way or another online or in-person anywhere, ever, in my entire life, because I have no idea who you’re talking about. Your accusation is baseless slander.
Rich coming from someone who struggles yet to make a single substantive comment, and can only evade and spew uninformed bile. Not what I'm on HN for. Good bye!
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, as you should know because we've given you many warnings in the past.
I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been making a habit of this recently—though I did see some bad recent examples that weren't in this thread—but we need you to review the rules and fix this properly if you want to keep posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No matter how right you are or feel you are, you're abusing the site when you do this, and contributing to destroying it for its intended purpose. We have no choice but to eventually ban such accounts. Moreover, it isn't in your interests to post like this because, by doing so, you discredit your own position (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I mention this because users arguing for contrarian or minority views often end up breaking the site guidelines like this—it's a known dynamic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), and the only solution I know of is to know this and consciously practice not falling into it.
So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own? Why does only Russia or the United States have a say and not the Ukrainian people about who they want to be allied with?
In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
> So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own?
Before the war, US media agreed Ukraine was one of if not the most corrupt country in Europe. I mean, just look at what both Trump and the Bidens got away with.
There is also an enormous propaganda apparatus operating on Ukrainian minds. Look how Zelensky got essentially elected by a fictional TV show produced by a notorious oligarch.
So yes, it is correct to question how much genuine "Ukrainian" political will exists in relation to the whims of powerful oligarchs and foreign powers (US, Russia, EU).
You really want me to believe that it is the Ukrainian national will to be slaughtered to prevent the corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Kiev being replaced by a corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Moscow? And that it is purely a coincidence that faraway Washington+London are extremely enthusiastic about this outcome?
> In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
He explicitly invited the audience to provide this "evidence". I invite you to do the same.
And then there is the actual annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts in 2022. If annexation was not his goal, why did he, why these specific ones that create a land bridge for Crimea, and why was the Russian constitution updated to include these territories?
I will not deny any allegations of Ukrainian corruption, that is an issue they will have to work through. Even the United States is not innocent when it comes to political graft. But one is a country that is defending itself from an invading force and the other side is invading. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry here.
Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. That Ukraine doesn’t have any actual agency. I’m claiming Russia is invading because Ukraine wants to exercise their own sovereignty and you are agreeing with Russia that Ukraine does not and is just a puppet. Realists need to explain why Ukraine, and only Ukraine, in this situation is unable to have agency yet London, Washington, and Moscow are the only ones capable of having agency.
I encourage you to actually engage with the material you are wielding as "evidence" and the material you are responding to.
From the conclusion of Putin's speech:
> Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us. We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous. I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.
This is supposed to be evidence that Putin's goal was to conquer all of Ukraine? I will charitably assume you already know what "partnership" means in IR jargon.
Where is your evidence?
Regarding your other questions, Mearsheimer addresses them in his talk, which you apparently haven't listened to. There is a lot of historical context you aren't aware of.
> Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith.
This is your own problem. If Putin says the sky is blue, is the sky therefore not blue? This is anti-intellectualism par excellence.
I am not saying these things because Putin may agree with them, but because they are based in evidence and common sense. Know the difference!
I think one of your major mistakes is taking Russias and Putins word at face value and not accounting for the fact that they rarely keep any promises / agreements they have if it doesn’t serve them.
Just see the Budapest memorandum as a great example, the Budapest memorandum was a victory for the world and it requires Russia to do was to not invade Ukraine
But they couldn’t stick to it.
Another good example is the likely deal between Yevgeny Prigozhin and Putin after the failed coup attempt, he then a handful of months later dies in a plane crash.
> The Budapest Memorandum was annulled when one of its signatories blatantly violated its first clause in early 2014 (if not earlier).
> ...and Russia annexed Crimea in response.
Ah yes it's not because Russia invaded and annexed Crimea at gun point that was the violation of the Budapest Memorandum im sure it's something else that you'll come up with that makes it 'annulled'. Something that makes it someone else's fault and not the person holding the guns to peoples heads.
I presume you think that Ukraine deserves its nuclear weapons and long range bombers back from Russia, considering the agreement was 'annulled'?.
I do not think we are going to reach a consensus on what reality is if you can read through that paper Putin published and not see it as calling to subjugate Ukraine, among other issues with its “facts”.
OP is a good article, but it’s about Russian society, not the war itself. It checks all the boxes that Russia is in fact a fascist state, but then for some reason doesn’t connect the dots and actually print it plainly.
For people actually interested in the war, stick to sources more used to covering military issues. The Institute for the Study of War has a superb daily briefing. The Drive’s section The War Zone does well, as does the Daily Kos. Or even OSINT communities on Reddit.
It’s much harder to take the Ruski mir seriously once you’ve seen enough mobiks with two days’ training being shot in a field filled with their own litter, knowing they would never send Muscovites to the front.