Hello, and happy Friday. This is the third in a series of back-to-back emails from me. For that, I can only apologize. From next week, we’ll be returning to our fortnightly schedule. I know inbox space is at a premium, so I appreciate you all letting me take up more of it than usual.
The war in Ukraine is now entering its third week. In our last correspondence, I told you about the cultural boycott of Russia and the impact that such sanctions can have in terms of applying pressure on Putin and denying him a propaganda platform. This week, I want to briefly touch on the kinds of boycotts that aren’t effective, such as harassing Russian restaurants, censoring Tchaikovsky, and treating ordinary Russians as anything other than victims of Putin’s senseless war.
These kinds of actions do nothing but needlessly fuel the Kremlin’s narrative that the West is Russiaphobic. Putin already has plenty of state-funded media outlets at his disposal. He doesn’t need additional help fueling his propaganda from the rest of us.
In podcast news: I joined The Bunker’s Start Your Week podcast to discuss all things Ukraine. Tune in to hear my inadvertent pun about how the International Cat Federation’s ban on Russian cats is unlikely to give Putin pause 🐾 You can listen to the episode on all good podcasting apps (find yours here).
What I’ve written
When Vladimir Putin began laying the groundwork for his invasion of Ukraine, he pointed to what he regards as the existential threat posed by the West encroaching farther into the post-Soviet space. I wrote about how that fear has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy:
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has primarily succeeded in materializing his worst fears: a unified West, a more militarized Europe, and a stronger, more attractive NATO. No matter how the invasion ends, this will be one of its legacies. Putin has demonstrated his willingness to violate the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors, in full view of the world, with little regard for the consequences. Several of those neighbors are now justifiably asking themselves, Could we be next? Keep reading here
What I’ve read
This piece on what the war in Ukraine looks like through Russian TV (The Atlantic)
Russians, with dwindling news options, tend to buy what their government and its media allies are selling. Russians with Ukrainian relatives buy it. Acquaintances of Kovalev buy it. The alternative—that the invasion is not justified, that Russians are the aggressors—is too horrific to entertain.
This thoughtful meditation on the media’s lionization of Volodymyr Zelensky (Columbia Journalism Review)
It’s legitimate for journalists to assess how Zelensky has risen—and is perceived to have risen—to this moment, the urgency and enormity of which has understandably eclipsed the messiness of his biography in much coverage. Even so, leaders never enter crucial moments as a blank canvas; indeed, a feature of democracy (which Zelensky is now fighting to protect) is that the press should scrutinize politicians, always, and not lapse into hagiography. Coverage that has cast Zelensky as a two-dimensional action hero has sometimes skirted dangerously close to that line, and can have other troubling ramifications, too.
This deep dive into Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch who was sanctioned by the British government this week (Jewish Currents)
No one exemplified that new system better than Abramovich, who Forbes declared the richest person in Russia in 2005—although by that point his presence in Russia had become nominal. Even as he built up his credibility with Putin, he joined many of his fellow oligarchs in stashing his billions in Western financial institutions, which proved eager to assist.
What I’m thinking about
This brilliant tweet. Choose your fighter:
Until next time,
Yasmeen