corriere.it
Expert Warns Against Compromising with Russia in Ukraine
Anne Applebaum, a scholar on Russia and Eastern Europe, discusses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, emphasizing the need to pressure Russia to cease its aggression. She criticizes the focus on convincing Ukraine to compromise and advocates for stronger actions to force a Russian withdrawal.
- What are the main arguments presented by Anne Applebaum regarding the conflict in Ukraine?
- Anne Applebaum, a Polish-American scholar specializing in Russia and Eastern Europe, believes that persuading Russia to cease its aggression in Ukraine is the key to ending the conflict, not convincing Ukraine to stop fighting.
- What are some of the proposed solutions for ending the conflict in Ukraine mentioned in the article, and what are their potential drawbacks?
- Applebaum is concerned that many discussions focus on urging Ukraine to halt hostilities while Russia continues its attacks. She points to increased offensives and drone strikes since the US elections as evidence of Russia's continued aggression.
- What is the author's overall assessment of the likelihood of successful negotiations and what role does the author suggest the European Union should play?
- Applebaum suggests various ways to end the war, including military victories, increased sanctions, targeting Russian infrastructure, engaging with internal Russian opposition, or offering economic incentives. She believes that any negotiation not ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty would be temporary and ultimately lead to further Russian aggression.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the conflict largely from the Ukrainian perspective and presents Russia's actions in a very negative light. While it acknowledges negotiations, it emphasizes the need to force Russia's hand, rather than exploring possibilities of mutual compromise.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language to describe Russia's actions, such as "aggression," "destruction," and "blitz." These words frame Russia as the aggressor and could influence readers' feelings towards the conflict. The phrasing of solutions as "costringere i russi a ritirarsi" (forcing Russians to withdraw) shows a clear bias towards a particular approach.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Applebaum's perspective and omits counterarguments or alternative viewpoints on how to end the conflict. It does not present perspectives from Russian officials or other experts who may offer different interpretations or solutions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the conflict as solely Russia's fault and not considering possible Ukrainian actions that could contribute to the conflict. It also oversimplifies the possible solutions to the conflict and implies a simple either/or choice between military action and negotiation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the ongoing conflict, violence, and instability in Ukraine, which directly undermines peace, justice, and strong institutions. The potential for further escalation and destruction underscores the serious threat to global security and international law.