Russia - General Discussion.

[Feanor]

How does one do diplomacy with Russia after Mr Putin has been so duplicitous and deceitful? Trust is the currency of diplomacy. Mr Putin destroyed that totally soon as he invaded. His action echoes those of Hitler and that is remembered in the West.

Diplomacy is give and take, trade and leverage. Lack of trust limits what is possible, which is where verification mechanisms come in. I agree, this is a problem, especially since Russia explicitly claimed there was no invasion planned, followed by an invasion. However this seems to me to be an obstacle to overcome. There was little trust between the USSR and the west, yet this didn't prevent some sort of diplomacy from taking place. With this invasion I think Putin has painted himself into a corner and effectively kicked off a new cold war. To prevent this cold war from getting hot and causing even more damage, some sort of framework is needed. A neutral and demilitarized Ukraine is better then a destroyed Ukraine with much loss of life, regardless of what Ukraine's own elites think on the subject.

 

[cdxbow]

Diplomacy is give and take, trade and leverage. Lack of trust limits what is possible, which is where verification mechanisms come in. I agree, this is a problem, especially since Russia explicitly claimed there was no invasion planned, followed by an invasion. However this seems to me to be an obstacle to overcome. There was little trust between the USSR and the west, yet this didn't prevent some sort of diplomacy from taking place. With this invasion I think Putin has painted himself into a corner and effectively kicked off a new cold war. To prevent this cold war from getting hot and causing even more damage, some sort of framework is needed. A neutral and demilitarized Ukraine is better then a destroyed Ukraine with much loss of life, regardless of what Ukraine's own elites think on the subject.

How does one assure a neutral and demilitarised Ukraine that Russia won't do it again?
You can't.
They have to trust Mr Putin. Could you? I certainly wouldn't.
Mr Putin is the problem.

Added - I don't think the Ukraine would ever accept being demilitarised. I don't think that is a realistic expectation.

 

[Feanor]

How does one assure a neutral and demilitarised Ukraine that Russia won't do it again?
You can't.
They have to trust Mr Putin. Could you? I certainly wouldn't.

This is where the West would have to come up with some tangible consequences to trigger if this occurrs.

Mr Putin is the problem.

Maybe. But I suspect any Russia that is both powerful and independent would run into the same issue, and perhaps would just be less likely to resolve it by force.

Added - I don't think the Ukraine would ever accept being demilitarised. I don't think that is a realistic expectation.

Ukraine can't afford it's own militarization. Ukraine was effectively bankrupt in 2014. It's ability to militarize is contingent on foreign aid, both military and financial.

 

[cdxbow]

This is where the West would have to come up with some tangible consequences to trigger if this occurrs.

I really struggle to find any 'tangible consequences' that could be put in place to deter Mr Putin after he has been willing to invade Ukraine and cause so much grieve and suffering to the Ukraine but also to his own soldiers and Russia.

 

[JGCAC]

I guess the only positive about $125-150 per barrel oil is a huge incentive to accelerate the transition off fossil fuels. Probably minimal chance of most nations meeting GHG emissions with oil under $100 a barrel.

Hopefully done properly this time with nuclear acknowledged. But it may not be smooth sailing. One of my friends at a national nuclear regulator is worried the nuclear war threats will again put people off peaceful nuclear power.

 

[John Fedup]

Hopefully done properly this time with nuclear acknowledged. But it may not be smooth sailing. One of my friends at a national nuclear regulator is worried the nuclear war threats will again put people off peaceful nuclear power.

Fossil free isn’t doable without nuclear and the public needs to be educated wrt this basic fact. Wind, solar, and hydro can’t do it all.

 

[Feanor]

I really struggle to find any 'tangible consequences' that could be put in place to deter Mr Putin after he has been willing to invade Ukraine and cause so much grieve and suffering to the Ukraine but also to his own soldiers and Russia.

I suspect he really didn't expect the level of sanctions and unified action from the west. So it wasn't that he was willing to take the hit he's currently taking, more that he's not willing to face defeat despite this hit. It's why some sort of resolution is necessary. Again, this is just my opinion.

I currently think the conflict is heading towards turning into a semi-frozen conflict where Russia occupies and takes all of eastern Ukraine, Kiev, Nikolaev, Odessa, and possible Zhitomyr-Cherkasy-Krivoy Rog. The Ukrainian government retreats to L'vov, and rules a rump Ukraine. Russia offers to withdraw under the conditions of demilitarization, de-nazification (whatever that means), and a neutral status, which Ukraine refuses, with the support of the West. Some sort of semi-cease fire is in place, and low-intensity clashes continue. The west rebuilds a Ukrainian army, and Russia firmly becomes a Chinese client state. This scenario, in my opinion, is bad for pretty much everyone, including Russia and Ukraine (though I suspect there are people in Ukraine's elites and nationalist circles that would be fine with this outcome). It's certainly bad for Europe who doesn't want anything like this. It might offer some advantages to the US who has Russia pinned down, isolated, a united Europe against Russia, and Russia has to spend tremendous resources supporting some sort of occupation government while under the weight of crippling sanctions. But even there I'm not sold the true interests of the US are well served.

I think the west, especially Europe, needs to take the initiative and find a way out of this that can avoid this outcome.

 

[cdxbow]

In Oz Wind, solar, and hydro with storage will do it all. Not the reason for the post, which was actually this article in the Strateigist looking at why Europe collectively has been so united and vigorous in its actions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. Explaining Europe’s reaction to Putin’s war | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) It does contain a great line:

'The current surge of solidarity in European civil society has refuted the Putinistas’ bare-chested rhetoric that effete debauchery had incurably sapped Europe’s fighting spirit.'

The article goes through a number of reasons why the European response has been swift and determined. Also why it was terrible timing by Mr Putin, yet another misjudgement by the strategic maestro.

I think there is another reason. Mr Putin actions in invading the Ukraine have followed a very similar playbook to the start of Hitlers invasion of Europe last century. Their are differences and I'm sure the historians here will show all the ways it's different. However the process of making spurious claims, denying ill intent, claims of ethnic cleansing, demands of historical right, slicing bits and pieces of your opponent (but below a certain threshold) and eventually a nasty invasion. I think this pattern of behaviour resonates strongly in the European psyche in a very fundamental way and goes partly to explain their response.

There are a number of ironic things about Mr Putin going after the 'fascist' Ukrainians with a Jewish leader. One of which is that Mr Putin and the Russia he has forged ticks just about all the boxes for a Fascist regime. He's even got the especially important sense of historical grievance and a nostalgia for the past. These are part of his record.

 

[Ananda]

currently think the conflict is heading towards turning into a semi-frozen conflict where Russia occupies and takes all of eastern Ukraine, Kiev, Nikolaev, Odessa, and possible Zhitomyr-Cherkasy-Krivoy Rog

This is where some market analyst already predicted. Russia want to push Ukraine into settlement. They are not interested with West Ukraine where they will face more hostile occupations then potential part of East and South.

The west rebuilds a Ukrainian army, and Russia firmly becomes a Chinese client state.

China will be the real winner if Euro Zone and Russia can not come out with compromise settlement after this. China will control Russia vast resources (as they will be the main market), Euro Zone must find more expensive alternative, and Ukraine will be new divided chess board between West and Russia in this new Cold War 2.0, just like Germany in Cold War 1.0.

China will also control Russian expertise in Aerospace and Space (which some still needed by them), China then will build competitors toward Airbus and Boeing for market that can not get Western stuff or prefer something not Western (with Russia as main Chinese Sub Contractors).

For US, the tough economic sanction to Russia in this Ukraine situation, needed to give China what happen if they invade Taiwan. I do believe China will take step back on Taiwan issue, take more time, while they continue building themselves as alternative provider to the Global market, then Western US dominated providers.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is where some market analyst already predicted. Russia want to push Ukraine into settlement. They are not interested with West Ukraine where they will face more hostile occupations then potential part of East and South.

China will be the real winner if Euro Zone and Russia can not come out with compromise settlement after this. China will control Russia vast resources (as they will be the main market), Euro Zone must find more expensive alternative, and Ukraine will be new divided chess board between West and Russia in this new Cold War 2.0, just like Germany in Cold War 1.0.

China will also control Russian expertise in Aerospace and Space (which some still needed by them), China then will build competitors toward Airbus and Boeing for market that can not get Western stuff or prefer something not Western (with Russia as main Chinese Sub Contractors).

For US, the tough economic sanction to Russia in this Ukraine situation, needed to give China what happen if they invade Taiwan. I do believe China will take step back on Taiwan issue, take more time, while they continue building themselves as alternative provider to the Global market, then Western US dominated providers.

I think that the Chinese have long coveted the vast resources of Siberia and a weakened Russia would give them reason to think an opportunity to access those resources exists. However Russia still has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world and it would not take to kindly to the CCP helping itself to Russian Siberian territory and assets. Methinks the reaction would be somewhat violent.

However I don't think that the CCP / PRC will be in the position to finance a Russian economic recovery of any type because it too is looking like it is entering economic choppy waters because of Xi Jinping's policies:

• the real estate development industry has take a big hit with firms defaulting going bankrupt because of politically induced inabilities to raise capital;
• cities and local authorities going bankrupt and unable to pay public servants;
• foreign companies withdrawing from the PRC and laying off local staff increasing the unemployment rate, which is already high,

All of which are exacerbating pre-existing problems of:

• a high number of older people in the elderly cohort at the top end of the population pyramid with them not being replaced by those in the youth and 20 - 40 age cohort,
• the artificial sex imbalance between males and females which negatively impacts the population replacement, creating accelerated negative population growth

So I think that the PRC economy may take a hit in the near to medium term if Xi's policies continue and especially if he survives the 20th Party Congress later this year, is voted a third term and / or is made Chairman for life. Either way he will take the CCP and the country back to a Maoist political and social way of life, with the economy suffering because of this. Political thought and reliability will again reign supreme over science and practicality.

 

[Feanor]

I think that the Chinese have long coveted the vast resources of Siberia and a weakened Russia would give them reason to think an opportunity to access those resources exists. However Russia still has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world and it would not take to kindly to the CCP helping itself to Russian Siberian territory and assets. Methinks the reaction would be somewhat violent.

However I don't think that the CCP / PRC will be in the position to finance a Russian economic recovery of any type because it too is looking like it is entering economic choppy waters because of Xi Jinping's policies:

• the real estate development industry has take a big hit with firms defaulting going bankrupt because of politically induced inabilities to raise capital;
• cities and local authorities going bankrupt and unable to pay public servants;
• foreign companies withdrawing from the PRC and laying off local staff increasing the unemployment rate, which is already high,

All of which are exacerbating pre-existing problems of:

• a high number of older people in the elderly cohort at the top end of the population pyramid with them not being replaced by those in the youth and 20 - 40 age cohort,
• the artificial sex imbalance between males and females which negatively impacts the population replacement, creating accelerated negative population growth

So I think that the PRC economy may take a hit in the near to medium term if Xi's policies continue and especially if he survives the 20th Party Congress later this year, is voted a third term and / or is made Chairman for life. Either way he will take the CCP and the country back to a Maoist political and social way of life, with the economy suffering because of this. Political thought and reliability will again reign supreme over science and practicality.

I've always found an issue with the logic of "China will take Siberia". Resources aren't free even if they're inside your own territory. They still come with costs. At this point, what's the difference between paying a Russian extraction company and paying one of your own? To top it off, a grab for Siberia might come with some very nasty consequences. I suspect as long as Russia keeps selling, China won't have any desire to take Siberia. They're already getting what they want out of it.

As for financing Russia's recovery, you might be right. But the other side is that Russia is significantly smaller, demographically speaking, then China. It might be possible for China to offer significant support despite the problems they face domestically. Not enough to say finance a recovery, but enough to soften the blow of the sanctions. It remains to be seen.

 

[JGCAC]

I think that the Chinese have long coveted the vast resources of Siberia and a weakened Russia would give them reason to think an opportunity to access those resources exists. However Russia still has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world and it would not take to kindly to the CCP helping itself to Russian Siberian territory and assets. Methinks the reaction would be somewhat violent.

I remember reading that the far east Russian provinces are already much more dependent economically on China than Moscow. So any "takeover" doesn't even have to be overt.

China's way across the world has been stealthy domination through loans and buying up desired assets.

 

[tonyget]

China doesn't want to miss this opportunity to stockpile raw materials cheaply from Russia

China pushing state-owned firms to buy Russian oil, gas metals assets

Beijing is in talks with state-owned enterprises "SOEs" regarding opportunities to scoop up Russian companies and assets, according to Bloomberg. The news comes on the back of European...

seekingalpha.com

 

[Ananda]

However Russia still has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world and it would not take to kindly to the CCP helping itself to Russian Siberian territory and assets.

I suspect as long as Russia keeps selling, China won't have any desire to take Siberia. They're already getting what they want out of it.

China will control Russian resources by being the Main market. With West (at least most West) will be difficult to access by Russian, their dependence to Chinese market will be rise exponentially. With that, China already can control Russia vast resources without having to do anything military.

Yes China will not and on present size become substitute for Western market. However Russia will depend more on China and some emerging Asian market (like India) that need relative cheaper energy sources. With some Western market out of the game, then Russia has no choice to go there.

It's two way game, Russia has to find other market (which more likely demand lower prices then Western market), while Western market will have to get more alternative sources that demand higher prices.

That's why I always put doubt for how long Western market (especially Euro Zone) can stay away from Russian resources.

Note:
@tonyget I suggest you add some of your own comment in your post, before Mods give reprimand. It's against forum rules.

 

[oldsig127]

China pushing state-owned firms to buy Russian oil, gas metals assets

Beijing is in talks with state-owned enterprises "SOEs" regarding opportunities to scoop up Russian companies and assets, according to Bloomberg. The news comes on the back of European...

seekingalpha.com

Your opinion on this piece would be interesting and also required by forum rules

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

I've always found an issue with the logic of "China will take Siberia". Resources aren't free even if they're inside your own territory. They still come with costs. At this point, what's the difference between paying a Russian extraction company and paying one of your own? To top it off, a grab for Siberia might come with some very nasty consequences. I suspect as long as Russia keeps selling, China won't have any desire to take Siberia. They're already getting what they want out of it.

Old habits die hard. And it would be interesting to see how much ownership of those resources Chinese companies and entities have.

As for financing Russia's recovery, you might be right. But the other side is that Russia is significantly smaller, demographically speaking, then China. It might be possible for China to offer significant support despite the problems they face domestically. Not enough to say finance a recovery, but enough to soften the blow of the sanctions. It remains to be seen.

Yes definitely.

I remember reading that the far east Russian provinces are already much more dependent economically on China than Moscow. So any "takeover" doesn't even have to be overt.

China's way across the world has been stealthy domination through loans and buying up desired assets.

Yes, but what happens when the CCP / PRC money runs out, or is turned off for whatever reason? Debt diplomacy can only go so far and once countries begin to realise the hidden shark hooks in it, they may decide that it's not such a good idea. What price sovereignty? we are starting to see some concerns here in the South Pacific about CCP / PRC debt trap diplomacy being raised by some within island nations. The Solomon Islands would be a good example.

 

[Vivendi]

Why do you mean that I believe ? Better watch out before accusing someone. Doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what Russian Believe.

It seems I misinterpreted what you wrote, apologies for that. No need to be so defensive, by the way. I did in any case not accuse you of anything.

You want to make compromise then it's what to do. You want to continue the war drag on, then don't make compromise.

Who is "you"? I am not at war, Ukraine is at war. Ukraine needs to decide whether they want to fight for their freedom and pay the price, or surrender, and pay a different price. In any case they will pay a high price.

You say it's Russian lie, well the Russian don't think that. You are from West, off course you will say NATO is like saint, but not for the Russian.

Wrong -- most Russians (including Putin) realize that much of what Putin says are lies. Also, where did I say "NATO is like saint"? I never made such a claim.

If you want to fight a war with Russia go ahead, I just watch you guys destroying each other.

Let's see how the majority of West going to do After this. Continue to escalation or compromise.

As I have said repeatedly: NATO does not want a war.

Do you think the West should compromise and not Russia? Why do you write "continue to escalate" when it is Russia that has been escalating, NATO has merely been responding.

Also, keep in mind that Russia has started an unprovoked war, they have invaded a sovereign country, they have broken with International Law and the UN charter. Giving in to their demands after such horrendous acts are in my opinion not very wise. Espesially people in SE Asia should consider the wisdom of letting big, nuclear-capable countries use an invasion to force neighbour countries into submission. Singapore has understood the importance of defending International Law and the UN charter, they have not only condemned the Russian invasion, they have also impose sanctions. China is watching how the world is reacting to Russian aggression, and no doubt world's reaction to the war in Ukraine will influence how China thinks about invading neighbour countries in the future, if those countries refuse to give China what they want.

Imagine if, 20 years from now, China stars an invasion of Indonesia. How would you like Europe to react?

Do you want Europe to make a general statement that you should stop defending yourself and "make a compromise" with the occupant of your country? Or would you like Europe to strongly condemn the invasion of your country, referring to the UN charter and International Law, ship medical supplies and weapons, and impose sanctions on the country that broke International Law and is killing your fellow countrymen?

Ukraine and the rest of Europe will not forget those who helps in these trying times. Those who remain "neutral" will more easily be forgotten.

Some may say "During the Iraq war many countries did not protest much, and did not impose sanctions against the US why should we do it now"?

In my opinion the last Iraq war was a huge mistake, not protesting it was a huge mistake. People like Tony Blair and George Bush should have been investigated, to ascertain whether war crimes were committed or not (I am not saying they were, I am saying it should have been investigated). ICC concluded it was outside their jurisdiction ICC will not put Tony Blair on trial for war crimes: Report | Middle East Eye, which tells me that something is wrong somewhere.

HOWEVER, using one mistake as an excuse to make another (even bigger) mistake is not a great idea in my opinion. It will just move the world backwards, whereas we have an opportunity to move the world forward.

Only the "big" countries like the US and China can possibly "gain" from not playing by the international rules. All other countries will gain from not weakening but strengthening International Law. Therefore it should be in the interest also of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand to help increase the cost of breaking International Law. The war in Ukraine is an opportunity to send a signal to both the US and China that International Law must be respected, and a long list of countries are ready to impose sanctions on countries that break International Law by invading another country.

And yes, if the US ever breaks International Law in the future, then I strongly hope, and will fully support, that the US should be condemned, and sanctions should be imposed against the US. Just as in a civilized society, the Law should apply equally to everybody. We should not accept anything less.

 

[Ananda]

No need to be so defensive, by the way. I did in any case not accuse you of anything.

You accuse me on what I wrote base on my believe, while clearly what I wrote is my perception of Russian belief. I'm not being defensive, but what I believe means nothing, cause what important is what Russian believe as base on their actions.

am not at war, Ukraine is at war. Ukraine needs to decide whether they want to fight for their freedom and pay the price, or surrender, and pay a different price. In any case they will pay a high price.

Yes, Ukrainian and Russian that need to decide whether they want continue bleeding or going to compromise. So why are you complaining if compromise will be taken? I put that remark as metaphor on who actually bleeding in the war. Those whose bleeding will decide whether they will compromise or not in the end. If you're not in the war, then your believe won't mean anything. All your argument base with your own belief. This belief will not matter much as unless you are on the ground. It's the Ukrainians and the Russians that will decide which compromise to be taken.

Why are you complaining if they want to make compromise to each other and in what terms. My argument base on need for them to make compromise, if they want to stop bleeding. If not, and it will continue until one of them beaten.

Wrong -- most Russians (including Putin) realize that much of what Putin says are lies. Also, where did I say "NATO is like saint"? I never made such a claim.

Are you Russian ? Are you within Russian administration decision makers ? Are you already have polls on what Russian public fell about this? Or are you only talking base on some delutional social media from West.

Russian that I talk in here clearly Russian administration and thus means Putin administration. Nobody knows how many percentage of Russian that really support the war or not. So don't claim anything unless you can prove it. I never claim Russian Public because I don't know how actually they fell. However I can claim what Russian administration believe as it is already clear in their public position.

Can you shown prove that most Russian public doesn't believe on what Putin doing ? Don't use some anti war demonstration as prove. Many Americans shown in anti war protest during Iraq war, but many more American support that. How to prove that ? Simple they vote for Bush for second round in office.

When I said you will think NATO like saint, well because you are seeing no NATO wrong doing contributing toward this situation. Russia already complaining on NATO eastwards expansion. However do NATO and west give care on that ?

NATO still in cold war mentality on containing Russia as USSR replacement. Russia also still in cold war mentality seeing NATO going encircle them. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, and I not going to debate that. However it's unreasonable to expect Russia not going to counter NATO move. That's what's Ukraine war as part of the consequences.

you think the West should compromise and not Russia? Why do you write "continue to escalate" when it is Russia that has been escalating, NATO has merely been responding.

There's two war happen now, the war in the ground, and war in trade/economics. The West doesn't want to put foot in the ground, so they want to push the Russian by trade war. Both war need to have compromise, or continue to escalate.

Compromise coming from two ways. If only one way then it is surrender. Compromise means in any sense meeting in the middle. That's basic understanding. West want the Russian to take step back, but not wanting to take their step backs. That's not going to happen, unless Russian lose the war or can't bear the cost of war.

The cost will happen on the trade and economical pressure on both ways. That's what the market very sure on that. So if West want to continue on escalation on economics war, then prepared to pay the price. Russia will pay heavier price on trade war, but Euro zone will also. My post only wrote what market also question, will West willing to take the on going costs ? If not then they have to make compromise.

Imagine if, 20 years from now, China stars an invasion of Indonesia. How would you like Europe to react?

Do you think Europe will react like this if the War happen in Far East ? Average European don't care with the War in middle East that closer to them except on potential refugees. Europe will not react like this if the War happen in Far East, that's the reality.

Some of European nations will try to get tough with China, but most of Europe will try to remain neutral or try distance themselves, just like many Asians do right now. That's human realities, if it's far most of them will sitting in the fence.

You seem have problem with "compromise", but that's real world situation. You want to escalate, then don't compromise. You want to settle, then compromise.

 

[denix56]

I have found 1 more article about nuclear weapons in Russia. It is written in quite anti-Russian style, however it might contain interesting ideas.

The author says that the a lot of nuclear warheads, that are currently present in Russia, might not be in the good state, as they are too old and Russia stops the production of the plutonium for warheads as well as probably don’t have enough specialists to restart the production. And the maintenance of the existing warheads is also a difficult and very expensive process.

Another point is that the ICBM based on the submarines cannot fly far enough, so the submarines have to stay close to US Navy (who has a lot of anti missile stuff there).

Also, the distance that missiles launched from Topol-M have a reduced range when we install a warhead big enough to make a sense to launch it.

Ядерный блеф России

Пока политологи ведут дискуссии вокруг будущего постфедеративного пространства, последний редут евразийской империи подданные г-на Путина теплятся надеждой, что распада России никогда не произойдет, патамуша этого просто не может произойти. Логика железная. И, как аргумент в их подсознании…

oleg-leusenko.livejournal.com

 

[STURM]

Interesting takes on public perceptions and the media coverage of war. Whilst it's very hard to remain truly impartial, one does have to try to maintain a certain level partiality and acknowledge that certain things are not always what they seem, despite the temptation to think or believe otherwise.

On the Ukrainian David, and the Russian Goliath

The media is working hard to sell us a black and white narrative on the Russia-Ukraine war.

www.aljazeera.com

''It is not just the racism of the reporters and the hypocrisy of the response to the awful humanitarian crisis the Russian invasion has provoked, though those are galling in themselves. I think it is more the tone of the coverage, how hard the narrative of the Ukrainian David – small, brave, pure – facing down the Russian Goliath – big, unwieldy, stupid and above all, evil and brutal – is being pushed. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that the world is rarely so black and white and to be suspicious when people try to present it that way''

''Thus, the media does not dwell too much on the many warnings about what the expansion of NATO would unleash. Neither is too much ink spilt on the systemic racism displayed by the Ukrainian state which, even in its hour of dire need, has problems acknowledging the humanity of non-Europeans. When not dismissed out of hand, the complaints by foreign students are given short shrift in the media. Similarly, while denouncing the distortions of truth and lies in the Russian state press, Western media seems happy to excuse similar distortions and lies from Ukraine’s media-savvy government. Violations of the laws of war by Russians are condemned while justifications are sought for Ukrainian videos of Russian PoWs and for images of children being trained to fight''

''The world is a complex place. Just because a people are victims of a horrible crime does not mean they cannot themselves do terrible things. By erasing the complexity and trying to replace it with a tale of pure Ukrainians and debased Russians, Western media is creating what Nigerian writer Chimamanda Adichie famously called “the single story”. Power, she says, is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of them. “Show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become”.

Ukraine war: Is impartiality always key to quality journalism?

Terms like ‘invasion’, ‘unprovoked aggression’ and ‘resistance’ can and should be used in conflict reporting.

www.aljazeera.com

''But while I fully support the use of such accurate language and terminology in the coverage of Russia’s invasion, I’m still shocked and frustrated. For when I was covering Israel’s “assaults” on Lebanon in the 1990s for Western media, I was never allowed to describe what was happening in the country this accurately. When I was reporting for BBC Arabic during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, for example, I was told never to refer to the Israeli military as the “occupying force” for the sake of impartiality. I was asked never to talk of “resistance” in what was then occupied South Lebanon, and to always describe any such action in occupied territories as “military operations against Israeli forces” – again to remain impartial and loyal to the BBC’s sacred editorial guidelines''.

''Every single Western journalist who contributed to the coverage of the Ukraine war and used terms like “resistance”, “invasion” and “aggression” needs to stop and think why it was not acceptable for us Lebanese journalists to use those same terms when we were covering Israel’s assaults on civilians in our country in 1993, 1996, and 2006''.

''They need to stop and question why my sympathy for the victims of war in Lebanon, my efforts to reflect their pain and explain their struggles were seen as a sign of bias and unprofessionalism, but similar coverage of Ukraine today is being saluted as exemplary and humane – and to be clear, it is exemplary and humane''