Here’s what to read from the left and the right | Column
We live in a partisan age, and our news habits can reinforce our own perspectives. Consider this an effort to broaden our collective outlook with essays beyond the range of our typical selections.
FROM THE LEFT
From “How Putin Wants Russians to See the War in Ukraine,” by Masha Gessen in The New Yorker.
The context, from the author: Even if his hold on power is precarious, Vladimir Putin can still convince Russians that the whole world is conspiring against them.
The excerpt: Even the shrewdest dictators — which usually means the most paranoid — often come to overestimate their reach, their popularity and their wisdom. They surround themselves with sycophants, shut out the rest of the world and usually, sooner or later, make a misstep. Over his 22 years at the helm, Putin has winnowed down his circle of interlocutors. In the past two years, fear of COVID has forced him into near-total isolation.
From “Pro-Putin Disinformation on Ukraine Is Thriving in Online Anti-Vax Groups,” by Kiera Butler in Mother Jones.
The context, from the author: These online groups have all the usual themes — secret government alliances, antisemitic tropes and nefarious scientists.
The excerpt: Wild theories about Ukraine do seem to be gaining traction beyond just the influencers pushing them. I noticed them popping up in casual conversations among members of online anti-vaccine groups, as well. In a Telegram group with 52,000 followers called COVID Vaccine Injuries, a member posted about an upcoming video, saying, “I plan to expose, for the first time, using information I never shared before, how the conflict in Ukraine, the vaccines and The Great Reset are all tied together.” (The Great Reset is another recurring theme in many of these posts — it’s a conspiracy theory that alleges that the government and elites are using the pandemic to brainwash citizens.)
From “Media Malpractice and Information War in Ukraine,” by Ishmael N. Daro in The Nation.
The context, from the author: The Western media’s double standard is on full display amid Ukraine war coverage.
The excerpt: Much of the coverage of the Ukrainian crisis has also been remarkably free of controversy regarding potentially millions of refugees fleeing to safety in other countries, the right of civilians to engage in armed resistance, or the ethics of economic and cultural boycotts against states violating human rights and international law. The dispassionate presentation of Ukrainians making Molotov cocktails to fight off an occupying army stands in sharp contrast to how wars in other parts of the world are covered — a fact not lost on many journalists of color.
FROM THE RIGHT
From “Beware Wishful Thinking in Evaluating the Ukraine Crisis,” by Charles C.W. Cooke in The National Review.
The context, from the author: War is a terrible thing, and it seems likely that it is about to get far more horrible still. War crimes will be committed. The result of this — even if the ploy ultimately fails — will probably not be the good guys rushing in to save the day, but thousands upon thousands of painful deaths. And then what?
The excerpt: we need is to be leveled with — about the real state of the war, about the most likely set of outcomes, and about the broader knock-on effects that might result. We need to grasp the potential consequences of escalation, and the potential consequences of inaction. We need to ask ourselves tough questions such as “If Russia were to invade Poland, should American soldiers be deployed?” and “At what point are we willing to fight?” We need to distinguish between war propaganda — which has a real value to those fighting — and the truth.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter
Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.
Loading…
You’re all signed up!
Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
From “What If Russia Loses?” by Noah Rothman in Commentary.
The context, from the author: How does Vladimir Putin de-escalate the crisis he inaugurated? Such an outcome is hard to envision now.
The excerpt: At the moment, Putin has a lot to prove, and the stakes as he views them are quite possibly existential — both for his regime and the greater Russia he has set out to reconstitute. As unappetizing as the prospect is, Western policymakers must consider the circumstances that Russia needs in order to confidently deescalate this situation. This is an exquisitely delicate moment. Among Ukraine’s Western supporters, the temptation toward triumphalism will be difficult to reject, but cooler heads must prevail.
From “Hitting Him Below the Belt — Putin Will Be Wounded to Learn His Athletic Accomplishments Are Being Recalled,” by Brad Slager in RedState.
The context, from the author: Over the years, Vlad Putin has been a PR machine for toxic masculinity. We have been inundated with his posturing for cameras in a testosterone fog. We have seen him shirtless, shooting weapons, and flying a fighter jet. He has scored eight goals in a hockey match (with opponents giving 50-percent effort) and we’ve seen him scuba diving a wreck (while “discovering” planted artifacts).
The excerpt: The International Olympic Committee is saying that it will be eradicating the honorary (Olympic Order) award it bestowed upon Putin as if that signifies something. It is like telling Dr. First Lady Jill Biden she will no longer be licensed to perform surgeries. As far as this supposed award revocation being the result of a violation of peace, Putin was granted this honor in 2001. He had already invaded Ukraine once since then. Plus, for this outfit to claim they promote peace, how do they explain awarding it to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, who once jailed his nation’s Olympic athletes when they failed to win any medals at the Rio Summer Games?!
This article has been archived for your research. The original version from Tampa Bay Times can be found here.
