5 ms·

As living in a country neighbouring Russia (Finland) I find very little at fault with the article. I don't think your critique opposes the article as such - yo

by fsloth 5y ago

As living in a country neighbouring Russia (Finland) I find very little at fault with the article. I don't think your critique opposes the article as such - you provide the background information that generally Economist excpects it's readers to already have. I think this quote from the article is very correct. "the world Mr Putin desires would be far more decadent, self-serving and amoral than the one that exists today." The concepts in the article are complex, and yes, it's more of a statement of sentiment than deep policy analysis (those take hundreds of pages). this whole article looks to me as though it started out from a conclusion, then pulled together a bunch of unrelated facts to paint a completely incoherent picture. Generally that's the whole point of Economist - their authors strive to digest a complex event and at least attempt to condense it to a brief article. I would love if they would cite all of the references used in an article but alas it is not so. Economist is also declared itself politically very partial to the liberal world view, so it's not something that they hide. You go to the Economist to get the liberal take on things - you don't need to like it, but you are not deceived by the authors motivation as it is very clear.

jacquesm 5y ago
> "the world Mr Putin desires would be far more decadent, self-serving and amoral than the one that exists today." That's true but that's just a pretty basic observation, the thing that the article seems to want to say most of all is that the rest of the world outside of a relatively small minority portion in the 'West' is either supportive of Russia or ambivalent and I don't see the support for that thesis. See the part that starts with: "In Mr Putin’s world, where might makes right, today’s lack of support is proof of Western decline."
- fsloth 5y ago
  I take it as a more of "liberal call to arms for western values" rather than as an objective quantitative conclusion - but yes, Economist is a bit of a mixed bag on this way. It's the best news media today (IMO) but it's not perfect.
3pt14159 5y ago
Overall, I've been pleased with the coverage in The Economist, but the occasional article, like this one, lacks an authentic through line even if it has a litany of facts. China was never, ever going to go against Russia in this war. It's not even worth talking about the number of people there because Putin literally went to China to discuss the war with Xi before it kicked off. The number of people barely matter when it's not a democracy, since the power structures are decided by a much smaller percent of the population and the press isn't free. India, I actually do take issue with. Their self-serving actions I hold against them and I've been disappointed with Indian leadership and alignment as of late. But all of this misses the point. The unaligned movement is acceptable to my western eyes, but I never for a second forget that they need us for their stability and security. Small, poor, neutral states rarely change the course of world politics. So out of the countries that actually matter there is NATO (and friends like Australia and Japan), India, Brazil, Russia, and China. India and Brazil both disappointingly went neutral, Russia started the war, and China is softly backing their junior partner. So my take away is simple: The countries that are willing to sacrifice at their own cost for others are the ones that have internal politics that mirror their values. The more populist or fascist or communist the country the more likely they are to put their own national interests ahead of others. Or do you think Canadian-Ukrainian trade is so vital to Trudeau that he's willing to frost relations with Russia, outlay hundreds of millions in direct aid and munitions donations, and spend political capital garnering support for Ukrainian defence?
- zaphirplane 5y ago
  Is this really an ideological divide. Cause I remember Iraqi war where there where phrases about freedom fries, the willing and evil where thrown around I bet there are people that see this as ideological, fair and good vs evil I also bet there are some for whom this is a strategic and precedent setting
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    Canada and most of Nato wasn't in Iraq. I agree that the Iraqi war was based on lies and was a disaster for a multitude of reasons. That said, some things are good and evil. And Putin's invasion of Ukraine is evil. Ukraine was a democratic, peaceful country.

by fsloth 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

> "the world Mr Putin desires would be far more decadent, self-serving and amoral than the one that exists today." That's true but that's just a pretty basic observation, the thing that the article seems to want to say most of all is that the rest of the world outside of a relatively small minority portion in the 'West' is either supportive of Russia or ambivalent and I don't see the support for that thesis. See the part that starts with: "In Mr Putin’s world, where might makes right, today’s lack of support is proof of Western decline."

fsloth 5y ago
I take it as a more of "liberal call to arms for western values" rather than as an objective quantitative conclusion - but yes, Economist is a bit of a mixed bag on this way. It's the best news media today (IMO) but it's not perfect.

3pt14159 5y ago

Overall, I've been pleased with the coverage in The Economist, but the occasional article, like this one, lacks an authentic through line even if it has a litany of facts. China was never, ever going to go against Russia in this war. It's not even worth talking about the number of people there because Putin literally went to China to discuss the war with Xi before it kicked off. The number of people barely matter when it's not a democracy, since the power structures are decided by a much smaller percent of the population and the press isn't free. India, I actually do take issue with. Their self-serving actions I hold against them and I've been disappointed with Indian leadership and alignment as of late. But all of this misses the point. The unaligned movement is acceptable to my western eyes, but I never for a second forget that they need us for their stability and security. Small, poor, neutral states rarely change the course of world politics. So out of the countries that actually matter there is NATO (and friends like Australia and Japan), India, Brazil, Russia, and China. India and Brazil both disappointingly went neutral, Russia started the war, and China is softly backing their junior partner. So my take away is simple: The countries that are willing to sacrifice at their own cost for others are the ones that have internal politics that mirror their values. The more populist or fascist or communist the country the more likely they are to put their own national interests ahead of others. Or do you think Canadian-Ukrainian trade is so vital to Trudeau that he's willing to frost relations with Russia, outlay hundreds of millions in direct aid and munitions donations, and spend political capital garnering support for Ukrainian defence?

zaphirplane 5y ago
Is this really an ideological divide. Cause I remember Iraqi war where there where phrases about freedom fries, the willing and evil where thrown around I bet there are people that see this as ideological, fair and good vs evil I also bet there are some for whom this is a strategic and precedent setting
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Canada and most of Nato wasn't in Iraq. I agree that the Iraqi war was based on lies and was a disaster for a multitude of reasons. That said, some things are good and evil. And Putin's invasion of Ukraine is evil. Ukraine was a democratic, peaceful country.