How Russian PoWs see Putin’s invasion
Greetings from London,
Normal service was resumed at The Economist last week, after our summer double issue meant a week without a print version. As is perhaps inevitable at an institution with a 180-year history of appearing in print, digital-only publication causes a certain degree of angst. It is a sort of vicarious FOMO, a fear of some readers missing out. Our “e-week” produced some outstanding journalism and it would be a shame if you had not seen, for example: our profile of Alphabet as its search engine, Google, approaches 25; or our take on what might happen if Germany stopped making cars; our sobering look at dwindling life expectancy in America; not to mention, of course, our coverage of one of the big news stories of that week, Donald Trump’s most recent indictment. Even for those of us who learned our journalism in the steam age, the digital era offers an enormous consolation: our work is still there, and far more easily retrieved than from a dusty pile of dead trees.
Looking ahead to this week, tension between America and China will continue to make geopolitical news. That is certainly the backdrop to an historic meeting on Friday, when President Joe Biden will play host at Camp David to the first-ever standalone trilateral summit between America, Japan and South Korea. As if timed to underscore the importance of closer American co-ordination with its East Asian allies, this weekend an old, old row has blown up again, with the brief stopover in New York on his way to a presidential inauguration in Paraguay, of William Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s vice-president—and probable presidential candidate. Each week seems to produce a new bone of contention between the two superpowers. On August 9th Mr Biden imposed new curbs on American investment in sensitive technologies in China. But his strategy, we argued last week, is not working. America’s efforts to “de-risk” its relations with China are being counter-productive.
We continue to report extensively from the war in Ukraine—at least from the Ukrainian side of the front line. No country fighting a war is wholly open to the press, nor wholly innocent of bad behaviour. But at least Ukraine seems to acknowledge that there are rules it should play by. Its treatment of Russian prisoners of war has been far from perfect. But there is no doubt that they are far luckier than their Ukrainian counterparts in Russia or Russian-occupied Ukraine, to whom the foreign press has, of course, no access. I would also commend our correspondent’s report from a graveyard in Lviv, where efforts to bury the fallen in the present war are hampered, quite literally, by the skeletons of previous conflicts.
This week is quite likely to see the latest of Mr Trump’s many indictments, in this case over his alleged interference in the election in Fulton County, Georgia. So the question Tom Nuttall asked from this chair last week remains relevant: will Mr Trump’s legal woes hurt or help his presidential bid, and why? Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Most of you think that Mr Trump’s legal travails will not damage his chances of securing the Republican presidential nomination. As for the general election, views were split. Ben Coombs thinks his legal woes could “magnify existing unfavourable impressions” and make the path to the presidency more challenging, a conclusion endorsed by Jerry Rothstein. Eric Rathner thinks that what happens at the trials themselves makes a difference. A guilty verdict in one of more of them would not sway “true believers”, but it might tip independents into voting for Mr Biden, even as “the lesser of two evils”. And Kris Franks concludes “it’s very likely to be a wash”—his base may be strengthened by the indictments, but fence-sitting voters are likely to shy away.
Thanks very much for writing. For next week, perhaps you could tell us whether you agree with our leader from last week, that “Joe Biden’s China strategy is not working”, and, if so, tell us what would be a better one.
Simon Long, Editor-at-large
Recommended:
On August 9th President Joe Biden unveiled his latest weapon in America’s economic war with China. New rules will police investments made abroad by the private sector, and those into the most sensitive technologies in China will be banned. The use of such curbs by the world’s strongest champion of capitalism is the latest sign of the profound shift in America’s economic policy as it contends with the rise of an increasingly assertive and threatening rival.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Andrey was in prison for murder in Russia’s Ivanovo region, north-east of Moscow, when army recruiters came by and offered him a good salary and a record wiped clean in exchange for six months’ service. Two weeks after arriving at the front he stepped on a mine, lost his foot and was saved by Ukrainian troops. “If I had known the consequences of joining, I would not have done it,” he says dryly. Now he is reading a crime thriller in a prisoner-of-war camp near Lviv, hoping he will be exchanged soon.
Not so long ago analysts were openly wondering whether artificial intelligence (AI) would be the death of Adobe, a maker of software for creative types. New tools like DALL-E 2 and Midjourney, which conjure up pictures from text, seemed set to render Adobe’s image-editing offerings redundant. As recently as April, Seeking Alpha, a financial news site, published an article headlined “Is AI the Adobe killer?”
Most read by subscribers this week:
Enjoyed this newsletter?
Read three free articles each month on Economist.com—register for free. If you are not a subscriber, enjoy full access by subscribing here.
Senior Executive Coach, Strategic Advisor, Mentor, Board of Director and Advisory Director
1yI worry that given China’s economic challenges, the timing of President Biden’s latest “tightening “ could be ill timed and diminish al his recent trips to China to build trust.
Multi-award winning & bestselling author of fiction & nonfiction. Retired Jan 2018 from a 30-year career in Financial Planning
1yAlways excellent and concise material at The Economist (TE). I hope its editors & marketers will approach Tony Lyons at Skyhorse Publishing to inexpensively gain rights to my financial planning book just as The Epoch Times has. TET uses it to strong effect as a perk for premium subscribers. More at AuthorDan.com or by phoning Skyhorse in New York. I cannot give out Tony's cell number but you can make contact via SP's offices. Tell his secretary that Dan Gallagher suggested that TE reach out directly to him.
Sales Associate at American Airlines
1yThanks for sharing
Thank you The Economist for keeping us updated on what’s happening in the globe. If l may, l think the challenge we are facing today is the lack of a clear set of rules (criteria, if you like) for a State to become a Superpower. The role played by the US during and after the WWII can be one item on that criteria. If the US had not intervened and helped Europe in getting back on its feet through the Marshal Plan, we would have a very different continent (for the worse…a poverty stricken Europe). And what must a State keep on doing to sustain the ‘superpower’ position? Or can we have more than one ‘superpower’ where there’s a chairmanship/chairperson position shared on a rotational basis? The current (cold) war(s) is all about power games. If there were universally agreed upon set of rules for superpowers, there would be a harmonious working relationship, and we wouldn’t have the competition we are having today…one leader working day and night to be smarter than the other. Instead, they would drink more coffee/tea together and discuss their progress and decide on which business is to be handed over to the next chairperson. It would also enhance trust amongst them and in turn trickle down to the rest of the world.