- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- nytimes@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- nytimes@rss.ponder.cat
You must log in or register to comment.
I can’t help but read this as an attempt to whip up support for more direct intervention in Ukraine. They claim Russia is on the cusp of victory because the West lacks “the will” to defeat its rival. That sounds like they want their readers in the West to start pressuring governments to send more support, maybe even direct intervention, as an expression of that “will to win.”
I do see how the narrative in the headline could be a call to action, but the article doesn’t propose a solution behind which the audience can rally. At most, the article describes how Americans can interpret the inevitable defeat. Of course, this text doesn’t exist in isolation; other texts would have to do the heavy lifting so that Americans rally behind a war effort.
That was my read as well, and the conclusion is basically an admissions of defeat
Time will tell just how severe the security and economic consequences will be, but one thing is already clear. A small war far away from America’s borders has reshaped our world — and made America’s place in it smaller.
Sounds like an attempt at a guilt trip with the end goal of, as queermunist above had said, drum up support for the war and direct intervention. Or rather official direct intervention, seeing as NATO mercs, “training specialists” and spies are already on the ground, while drones and satellites provide direct intelligence to AFU.
“Oh if only we had the political will and support to do the needful! Oh woe is us, America’s place in the world had dwindled and ebil putler is running rampant in his barbaric conquest! If only you, the reader, had been in lockstep with our plans and cheered for the war! Oh woe!”
I mean could be, but seems a lot more roundabout in that regard than previous articles. To me this read more like they’re starting to craft a narrative to explain the inevitable loss as the west not having committed enough. This could be used to justify more military spending and austerity going forward where they’ll say you don’t want another Ukraine do you, then shut up and pay for NATO.
Fair enough
incredible admission here
Mr. Putin is already planning for victory. His latest so-called peace proposal — in which Russia keeps occupied territory and Ukraine is banned from joining NATO — was dismissed as propaganda by many Western leaders. But it is, in fact, the most realistic scenario for how this war will pan out.
Not expected from the mouthpiece of US imperialism.
It’s an opinion piece.
Which had to pass the nyt editorial board.
I think that when critically thinking about an article, it’s worth considering if an article is an opinion piece.
In this case the article is an opinion guest essay, the stated goal for which is to “offer readers a robust range of ideas on newsworthy events or issues of broad public concern from people outside The New York Times.”
I think it is a mistake to assume this article reflects the position of the New York Times because they chose to run it.
I think it is a mistake to assume this article reflects the position of the New York Times because they chose to run it.
It may not reflect the position of the NYT, but does reflect their views in some regard. You don’t think they’d publish a guest essay portraying Stalin in any light other then a negative one?
Those opinion rags need approval?
What I’m saying is that while this is an opinion piece, it had to pass an editorial board. Since this piece obv got publish, it means that it reflects the views of the board in some regard
No, I understood that.
I’m just saying that I didn’t even realize that those absolutely trash opinion articles are getting approved despite how fucking garbage they are. I never really thought about it before. I just thought people just kinda wrote whatever within some guidelines.
You may as well be right. Thinking about how it’s a privately run business, It’s definitely within the realm of possibility and how it’s done in practice. It requires less time/ressources to have your journalists follow guidelines and punish them if they are not within guidlines. Reading the damn thing and haveing a lengthy approval process costs money after all…
Does he aye
NYT the original genocide deniers.
