Skateboard-wielding suspect accused of destroying D.C.’s tiki torch statue
The man was arrested on destruction of property and drug charges after police say he demolished the politically themed artwork.
A statue called “The Donald J. Trump Enduring Flame” is displayed Monday at Freedom Plaza in D.C. (Valerie Plesch for The Washington Post)
The mysterious tiki torch statue, part of a series of artworks popping up across the country apparently meant to mock former president Donald Trump, fell Wednesday evening at the hand of a man wielding his skateboard as an ax, according to authorities.
The incident occurred about 6:15 p.m. in D.C.'s Freedom Plaza, where the torch once stood about eight feet tall. By the time the skateboarder was done with it, according to charging documents, it was broken into multiple pieces.
A day later, all 75 pounds of wood, foam and plaster of the tiki torch installation — meant to ridicule Trump followers who took part in the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 — had vanished.
The people who obtained a permit from the National Park Service to temporarily display the tiki torch statue and a replica of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s desk topped by a giant swirl of fake poop on the National Mall near the Capitol last week have also claimed responsibility for two statues of Trump that appeared in Philadelphia and Portland, Oregon.
Those statues had plaques on them reading “In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault.” They quoted from Trump’s 2005 remarks to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush about being able to kiss women without asking them and grab them by their genitals. Both of the Trump statues were placed next to prominent female nude sculptures.
In connection to the fractured tiki torch, prosecutors charged a man named Balarama-Dasa Adebisi with destruction of property and possession of cocaine. A Park Police officer in charging documents said a “white powdery substance” was found in Adebisi’s pocket after he was detained on charges of destroying the statue.
A skateboard lesson provider called GOSKATE lists a man by the same name as Adebisi as “a skateboard guru in washington.” Neither the attorney listed for Adebisi in court records nor GOSKATE responded to a request for comment.
Park Police, in court records, said Adebisi acted alongside a second skateboarder. But the other man fled on his skateboard, according to the report. He has not been identified.
The destruction of the tiki torch installation was the latest development related to the artworks, which have attracted attention as much for their message as for how little is known about the people who have created them.
On Wednesday, the woman who applied for permits to place the artwork on the National Mall and in Freedom Plaza spoke publicly for the first time. Julia Jimenez-Pyzik, a television and movie producer who worked on 2020’s satirical “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm,” said she merely applied for permits to install the pieces, not knowing her name would be public. She said that she has nothing to do with the art and that there was no connection to “Borat.”
A man in contact with a Post reporter who claims to be behind the installations but would not share his identity said Thursday he was aware of the attack on the tiki torch.
“It’s frustrating because you don’t want someone to destroy something you’ve put out there,” he said. “My guess is it was destroyed by someone not understanding the context of it, but who knows.”
All four works the unknown people have installed have either been vandalized, destroyed or removed. A Pelosi nameplate was removed from the desk on the National Mall before being replaced by the artists.
This statue on the National Mall mocks the Capitol rioters. (Allison Robbert for The Washington Post)
In Portland last weekend, a Trump statue that appeared next to a sculpture of a nude woman was beheaded. Brandon Farley, a pro-Trump candidate for Portland City Council, posted footage of himself chiseling away the plaque at the bottom of it, according to the local TV station KOIN 6.
In Philadelphia on Wednesday, a similar statue of the former president that appeared next to “Maja,” a nude sculpture of a woman, lasted hardly a few hours before officials removed it. They said it lacked a necessary permit.
The tiki torch statue had been broken in half earlier this week before it was ultimately destroyed Wednesday evening.
Asked how he felt about all of the works being damaged or removed, The Post’s mystery source texted his reply: “Whether someone is smashing something because they don’t get it or precisely because they do, doesn’t it represent the anger and rage that feels more and more normalized every day,” he wrote. “That being said, I’m bummed they’ve been vandalized. I want them to be up for people to interact with and interpret.”
_________________
С интересом и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Kim Jong Un has sent North Korean troops to Russia. What’s in it for him?
The cash-strapped North Korean leader has sent some 10,000 troops to help in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Moscow could be giving him money and nuclear know-how.
In this photo distributed by the North Korean government, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervises artillery firing drills in North Korea on March 7. (KCNA/KNS/AP)
TOKYO — Thousands of North Korean soldiers in Russia are believed to be there to aid Moscow’s war against Ukraine, a massive and unprecedented mobilization of troops by Pyongyang for a faraway war that complements the munitions already provided to Moscow by the regime.
The move is something of an about-face by leader Kim Jong Un, who U.S. officials say has provided both weapons and personnel to support Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Since 1953, when the Korean War ended in an armistice, the North has been preparing for conflict to resume with the South — amassing a large arsenal of weapons and one of the biggest militaries in the world.
But Pyongyang has rarely gotten involved in foreign wars due to a long-held belief that its soldiers should be inside its own country, where they can be indoctrinated.
North Korean Foreign Minister Choi Seong-hee went so far as to call the conflict a “righteous holy war” while visiting Russia on Friday.
So officials in Washington, Seoul, Kyiv and beyond are asking: What exactly is Kim getting in return?
Russia and North Korea, two secretive states under heavy international sanctions, are highly unlikely to disclose the terms. While Putin’s need is clear as the war in Ukraine drags on for a third year — more than 600,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured in the war, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said this week — we may never know exactly what Kim’s motivations are.
But here are key theories of what Kim stands to gain — and what it could mean for his regime.
The regime is almost certainly earning hard currency
U.S. and South Korean officials say Pyongyang has been sending weapons to Russia since 2022, and that about 10,000 North Korean troops have been deployed to Russia to date.
That could amount to enormous sums of money for Kim’s cash-strapped regime.
North Korea has a long history of sending workers — mainly lumberjacks and builders — to Russia, and they provide a stream of valuable foreign currency that helps keep Kim in power.
Those laborers typically make about $650 a month, with $50 to $150 being paid to the worker directly. The rest is split between the regime and the operators who arrange jobs for the laborers, according to a 2024 human rights report by South Korea’s Unification Ministry.
In comparison, the soldiers being sent to Russia now may be making far more per month, with the regime taking even more of a cut than it does with the workers, experts say.
South Korea’s spy agency said last week that Russia is expected to pay each North Korean soldier about $2,000 each month, a total of $20 million per month for 10,000 soldiers.
“We’re talking about a couple hundred million dollars a year in cash, and then, obviously, the weapons sales as well. So we’re talking about billions, potentially,” said Peter Ward, a research fellow at the Sejong Institute in Seoul who specializes in the North Korean economy.
There is no evidence of such a bonanza yet, and there may be little sign of it depending on how the money is spent, Ward said.
While the money could finance some of Kim’s economic efforts, such as bringing more of the economy under his direct control or building more factories to boost domestic production, it could also end up going toward vanity projects — or developing his nuclear and weapons program.
“He must be getting cash and technology. And, you know, sadly, I think that he’s much more interested in the technology than the cash,” Ward said.
North Korea could be getting technological help for its nuclear program
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un visit the Vostochny Cosmodrome in southeast Russia on Sept. 13, 2023. (Vladimir Smirnov/Pool/Sputnik/AFP/Getty Images)
Pyongyang is highly likely to ask Moscow for cutting-edge technology in exchange for its support for Russia’s war against Ukraine, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun said after a meeting with his American counterpart at the Pentagon this week.
“North Korea is very likely to ask for technology transfers in diverse areas,” he said, including for tactical nuclear weapons, reconnaissance satellites, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarines capable of firing ballistic missiles.
Pyongyang and Moscow have a long history of military cooperation, including on nuclear technology and weapons development, dating back to the Soviet-supported foundation of North Korea as a Communist state in 1948.
The Soviet Union helped North Korea build its nuclear research facility at Yongbyon in the 1960s, which became the source for the fissile material used in the six nuclear devices that Pyongyang has detonated since 2006. North Korea is now thought to have assembled 50 nuclear warheads and to have the fissile material for between 70 and 90 nuclear weapons, according to the Arms Control Association.
When it comes to missiles, North Korea has made remarkable technological strides in the past decade. Just this week, Pyongyang set a record when it sent an ICBM 4,350 miles into the atmosphere — more than 17 times higher than the International Space Station.
There are strong indications that North Korea got much of its technology from Russia, experts say.
For example, the North Korean solid-fuel tactical ballistic missile KN-23, first tested in 2019, is “remarkably similar” to the Russian Iskander-M missile, Oleksandr V. Danylyuk, a Ukrainian expert on Russian warfare, wrote in a note for the London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank. The North Korean missile has a maximum range of 430 miles and can be used with both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Now, as the two pariah states grow ever closer, experts say Russia could be providing North Korea with even greater technical assistance for their missile and nuclear programs.
Robert Peters, a nuclear and missile expert at the Heritage Foundation, wrote last week that Russia had the potential to “supercharge” North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
Specifically, Washington and Seoul were concerned Russia could help North Korea miniaturize nuclear warheads so they could fit on its missiles — a tricky technical challenge it does not yet appear to have mastered.
Russia is “ideally situated” to help North Korea to put a nuclear warhead on a modern cruise missile or multiple warheads on an ICBM, Peters said. “If North Korea did receive this technical know-how from Russia, the security situation in Northeast Asia would change fundamentally because North Korea would be able to target sites across East Asia and North America with salvos of nuclear-tipped cruise and ballistic missiles,” he wrote.
In addition, sending troops to an active combat zone offers Kim a rare opportunity to improve his conventional capabilities for his army.
Although Kim is believed to have sent technical advisers and some of his most highly trained special forces, including members of the elite “Storm Corps,” North Korea has not been involved in full scale war since the armistice 70 years ago. The battlefields of Ukraine and Russia would provide it exposure to the latest tactics, including the incredible advances in drone warfare just over the last few years.
“North Korean soldiers will gain practical experience in this war, understanding what land warfare entails, learning the use of artillery, drones, missiles, and so on,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told a South Korean broadcaster on Thursday as he pushed for an international response to the deployment.
Kim Jong Un craves international attention. He’s getting it now.
Hardly a day has gone by in recent weeks without North Korea’s troops in news headlines. U.S. and NATO officials are warning that the deployment of Kim’s troops to Russia is a “very, very serious issue” that could have reverberations in both Europe and the Pacific.
It’s exactly where Kim wants to be: the center of international attention.
North Korea and Russia have been deepening their military cooperation as they join forces against a Western-led global order. Their leaders signed a defense treaty in June, which states that if one country is subject to an “armed invasion,” the other would provide “military and other assistance with all means in its possession.”
“I’ve always thought this a win-win for both sides, united by virulent anti-Americanism,” said John Foreman, who was British defense attaché to Russia between 2019 and 2022.
“I also think North Korea gets a bit of a prestige boost for aiding Russia. We all know everyone, including Russia and China, has looked down their noses at the DPRK for decades,” Foreman added, using the formal abbreviation for North Korea. “The deal has made people sit up and take notice.”
The decision is not without risks, however.
For these young soldiers sent to Russia — most of them are in their early 20s, some in their late teens, according to South Korean intelligence — it is their first foray into life outside the totalitarian country. Kim risks the possibility of soldiers deserting the battlefield.
“The defection of North Korean special operation forces would represent an embarrassing blow to the Kim regime,” wrote Andrew Yeo and Hanna Foreman at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
As U.S. elections loom, Ukrainian officials are ready for Trump
Amid the sense that the status quo isn’t working, officials privately say they are prepared for a new approach by the U.S. administration.
Then-President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York in 2019. (Evan Vucci/AP)
KYIV — Ahead of a U.S. presidential election that is expected to have major implications for Ukraine — especially in terms of the vital U.S. security assistance — a number of Ukrainian officials are suggesting that maybe a drastic change would be good.
The official stance is of course that Kyiv will work with whomever Americans choose, toeing the principled diplomatic line of not meddling in an ally’s internal affairs. But behind closed doors, some in President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government see an upside in a Donald Trump victory, despite the Republican nominee’s repeated criticism of U.S. spending to support Ukraine and advocating a quick end to the war that could be to Russia’s advantage.
Vice President Kamala Harris would likely maintain the status quo if elected, and while Ukrainians have expressed gratitude for U.S. military support, they have also complained that this White House is too cautious and too slow in its decisions to avoid escalation with Russia. With Russia advancing on the battlefield for the past year and occupying more Ukrainian land, officials in Kyiv are increasingly lamenting that the status quo isn’t working and their requests for stronger weapons and looser restrictions on their use have been rebuffed.
Trump and Zelensky have had a tense relationship dating back to 2019, when Trump, who was then president, withheld military aid to Ukraine in an alleged effort to pressure Zelensky to dig up dirt about the business dealings in Ukraine of Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. That effort led to the impeachment of Trump in the U.S. House on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. (He was acquitted by the Senate.)
Ukrainian officials reject the notion that a Trump victory would be disastrous for Kyiv and that they are dreading the possibility. Within Zelensky’s office, there’s an optimism that the Ukrainian leader could sway Trump if the two forged a personal bond.
“Naturally, [Zelensky’s administration] relates more to Trump,” said a Ukrainian official who served in Zelensky’s government during Trump’s presidency. Like others in this story, the person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
Zelensky always saw similarities between himself and Trump, the official said, which the Ukrainian president believed would help them build a good relationship. Both rose to power with atypical backgrounds outside of the political system, with Trump hailing from the business world while Zelensky was an actor and comedian.
Zelensky and his team “like simple solutions,” the official said. “And Trump is the guy of simple solutions.”
Trump has repeatedly said he would help Ukraine and Russia negotiate a rapid deal to end the war if he wins in November, but he has not offered specific details. His running mate, JD Vance, whom many Ukrainian officials view with suspicion, has talked about a peace plan that would freeze current battle lines, leaving large parts of the country in Russian hands.
In an interview with Nordic journalists on Wednesday, Zelensky appeared to address Trump’s talk of a swift solution, saying that “we are also on the side of quick decision of peace, but we should not have to pay for this, we are not aggressors. Russia is the aggressor; they should pay.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky talks with Adm. Rob Bauer, chair of the NATO Military Committee, in Brussels on Oct. 17. (Olivier Matthys/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
Trump called Zelensky “one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen,” in terms of receiving aid from the United States. But Trump seemed to put the blame for the conflict on the Ukrainian leader, saying he “should never have let that war start.”
Trump also said Russia’s invasion would have never happened if he were still president, and he has repeatedly expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling some of his strategic decisions “savvy” and “genius.”
In his Wednesday interview, Zelensky noted that the American people have consistently supported the Ukrainian position “because they understand we are defending our common values.” He added that if the U.S. support declined, “we will count on ourselves and unity in Europe and the public opinion in America.”
Two other Ukrainian officials said that while Trump’s messaging on Ukraine has been negative, they believe that it is just campaign rhetoric and would not necessarily correlate with his actions in office.
Ukrainian officials often point to Trump’s record on Ukraine during his term as president, which included providing Kyiv with the first lethal weapons in 2019. Though Trump has praised Putin, his administration was considered hawkish in Moscow and pushed through new rounds of Russian sanctions.
Some Ukrainian officials acknowledged, however, that there is higher potential for a downside, and they are concerned that Trump would push for Ukraine to make territorial concessions to Russia in negotiations, which Zelensky’s administration has adamantly opposed.
There is a sense, though, among Zelensky’s people, that Trump would be wary of appearing weak on the world stage and might take more decisive action to support Ukraine as a result.
Another senior Ukrainian official recalled that inside the presidential office last year ahead of a Ukraine peace summit in Saudi Arabia that many countries did not bother participating in, Zelensky’s deputies lamented that “if Trump were president, everything would be different” because “he would’ve forced more countries to attend.”
Trump and Zelensky met for the first time since the invasion in September, a hastily arranged gathering in New York that lasted less than an hour. Trump said it was an “honor” to meet with Zelensky, but their brief appearance in front of assembled journalists illustrated awkwardness in navigating around Trump’s stated views of the conflict.
Before the meeting with Zelensky began, Trump said he had a “very good relationship” with the Ukrainian president and that he also has a “very good relationship” with Putin. Zelensky interjected: “I hope we have more good relations.”
At their meeting, Trump praised Zelensky for staying silent about the whole issue of the alleged phone call that sparked the impeachment trial, quelling concerns by Ukrainian officials that the former president could still be holding a grudge.
“He could have grandstanded and played cute, but he didn’t do that,” Trump said. “He was like a piece of steel; he said President Trump did nothing wrong.”
With Ukraine’s future potentially hinging on these U.S. elections, Ukrainians are “in an anticipatory position,” said Anton Grushetsky, the director of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, which has been polling people’s attitudes. He hasn’t noted any real preference in the candidates.
“There is a certain fear, there is always a fear of change,” Grushetsky said.
“You have the Biden-Harris administration, and people can predict their actions. But there’s also a certain feeling of frustration,” he added. “You have strong words, but people are upset that they aren’t followed by strong actions.”
_________________
С интересом и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
U.S. Spy Agencies Issue New Warning on Russia’s Election Misinformation Campaign
Two recent videos have sought to undermine confidence in the security of the vote.
The U.S. election has been a target of disinformation campaigns by other nations, particularly Russia.Credit...Bing Guan for The New York Times
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind a video that appeared on social media this week falsely claiming that Haitians illegally voted multiple times for Vice President Kamala Harris in Georgia.
The U.S. government issued a new warning on Friday, one that followed another video that began circulating a week ago falsely claiming that ballots in Pennsylvania were destroyed.
Officials say foreign powers are working to undermine faith in the election, and government agencies in charge of protecting the vote have said the torrent of false claims is greater than before.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the F.B.I. released a joint statement on Friday saying the video was the work of Russia.
Intelligence agencies assess “that Russian influence actors manufactured a recent video that falsely depicted individuals claiming to be from Haiti and voting illegally in multiple counties in Georgia,” the statement said.
On Friday, a senior official from the cybersecurity agency called it a “fire hose of disinformation.”
The recent disinformation videos, the senior official added, were an example of how foreign influence operations were “deliberately undermining the American public’s confidence in American democracy.”
Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, quickly denounced the video making the false claim about Georgia after it began to be amplified.
“This is false, and is an example of targeted disinformation we’ve seen this election,” Mr. Raffensperger said in a statement. “It is likely foreign interference attempting to sow discord and chaos on the eve of the election.”
The bogus video, which amassed hundreds of thousands of views on X, showed a man claiming to be a Haitian immigrant who arrived in the United States six months ago and obtained citizenship and identification documents.
“We’re voting Kamala Harris,” the man says. “Yesterday we voted in Gwinnett County, and today we’re voting in Fulton County.”
He then shows several identification cards that look like Georgia drivers licenses, calling on “all Haitians to come to America.” A closer examination showed that one photograph on an identification card is a stock photo. The address on the card led to an office park in Lawrenceville, Ga.
A video manufactured by Russia telling a fabricated tale of Haitian immigrants claiming to have illegally voted multiple times in Georgia as they flaunt bogus identification cards.Credit...Alphafox78, via X
Social media users shared the video in group channel on X created by Elon Musk’s political action committee to collect allegations of voter fraud. Darren L. Linvill, a professor and the director of the Media Forensics Hub at Clemson University, said the video appeared to be a production of a Russian operation know to researchers as Storm-1516.
“The style and production values of the video are exactly in line with what we’ve seen from them before,” Mr. Linvill said.
Similar to other fabricated videos produced by Russian operatives, the staged video shows the person’s face and does not reveal information about their location.
Mr. Raffensperger said he had asked Mr. Musk, the owner of X, to remove the false video from the social media platform. The post is no longer available.
Last week, a Russian disinformation group created and pushed a video falsely suggesting that ballots in Bucks County, Pa., had been destroyed. But local election officials quickly informed the public that the video was fake, and U.S. intelligence officials said it was the work of Russians.
Storm-1516, the Russian group, has spread a variety of videos trying to sow distrust in the election. A video created by the group earlier this year falsely accused the C.I.A. of setting up a troll farm in Ukraine to boost President Biden and Democrats.
Disinformation maligning Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, has circulated quickly. But false claims about voting irregularity claims have proved harder to spread, in part because they are much easier to disprove than murky claims about a candidate’s past.
As the Bucks County video makes clear, Russian disinformation groups have begun a partial shift toward election conduct. The government statement on Friday said the videos were part of “Moscow’s broader effort to raise unfounded questions about the integrity of the U.S. election and stoke divisions among Americans.”
Even with the two prominent examples of Russians seeking to undermine faith in the vote, Clint Watts, the head of the Microsoft Threat Analysis Center, said there was overall less disinformation focused on voting irregularities than at this point in previous election cycles. That may reflect a calculation that former President Donald J. Trump could win and that emphasizing irregularities could cloud a victory.
“They don’t want to undermine an election in which maybe they get the outcome they want,” Mr. Watts said. “Maybe this time they are a bit more reserved about it.”
Intelligence officials have said that Russia favors Mr. Trump in the election. The former president’s skepticism of military support for Ukraine, which Russia invaded nearly three years ago, and his promise to force peace talks quickly have raised the stakes in the election for Russia, officials say.
Microsoft expects Russian disinformation groups to quickly create more content if the election is contested. U.S. intelligence agencies have also predicted that Russia will attempt to stoke violence after the election if Mr. Trump is defeated, or if the election is close.
Russia could undermine the public’s faith in the vote either by manufacturing false claims — like the spoiled ballots in Bucks County — or by amplifying concerns of Americans over potential voting irregularities.
Over the past few months, intelligence officials have said that Iran favors Ms. Harris. Iranian-backed hackers took information from the Trump campaign and tried to spread it. U.S. intelligence agencies tracked a potential Iranian assassination plot to assassinate Mr. Trump.
But in recent weeks, Mr. Watts said, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or I.R.G.C., has been relatively quiet at least when it comes to spreading disinformation.
“This is the week we would expect the I.R.G.C. doing a hack and leak, a cyberoperation or a provocation,” Mr. Watts said. “And we have not seen it yet.”
Ms. Harris has come out strongly against Iran, naming it as a top threat to the United States. And the Biden administration has warned Iran that any plot against Mr. Trump or attempt on his life would be considered an act of war.
“If Iran is not sure what they get with either candidate, why root for either one because it puts them in a tough spot after the election,” Mr. Watts said. “I am not sure they are convinced they get what they want out of it.”
Цитата:
Who Abandoned Liberalism First, the Populists or the Establishment?
While American liberalism debates, round and round, whether Trumpism is a form of fascism, conservatives and conservatism’s fellow travelers have their own running debate about what exactly is happening to liberalism these days.
One form of this debate, the more familiar form, has focused on wokeness — what it is, whence it comes, is it quasi-religious or ideological or both, is it the fulfillment of liberalism or its betrayal, theories piling atop theories.
But there’s another debate that’s less about the content of liberal politics and more about its organizing structure. This argument relates to wokeness insofar as it tries to explain the pathways through which radical-seeming ideas spread so rapidly from academia through the worlds of philanthropy and education and corporate life. But it’s more interested in how the structure of liberal governance has changed, since the Cold War or Sept. 11 or the ascent of Barack Obama, than in the specific ideas that animate its operations.
The shift that these right-leaning observers are trying to explain is a phenomenon that became particularly apparent in the Trump years and especially in the Covid-19 emergency — the seeming integration of all sorts of institutions, public and private, academic and governmental, in a common political-ideological front.
Think of the way an idea would seem to travel from progressive academia through the world of foundations and nongovernmental organizations, popping up in the policies of a Democratic administration and the language of corporate human resources departments alike, without ever being subject to a normal kind of democratic debate. Or think of the various Covid-era entanglements between activist groups, social media companies, legislators and public health officials, and the related emergence of the liberal censor or commissar as a character across a range of very different institutional spheres — from anti-disinformation activists making demands of social media giants to sensitivity readers screening novels to bureaucrats assessing the D.E.I. statements of applicants for academic jobs.
Two essays from the past year are helpful for understanding the right’s perspective on these phenomena. One of them, by Jacob Siegel for Tablet, focuses on a theory of liberal politics distilled by the term “whole of society,” popularized in the Obama era and recycled thereafter. Here’s a bland gloss on the term, from a handbook of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:
Individuals, civil society and companies shape interactions in society, and their actions can harm or foster integrity in their communities. A whole-of-society approach asserts that as these actors interact with public officials and play a critical role in setting the public agenda and influencing public decisions, they also have a responsibility to promote public integrity.
Here is Siegel’s harsher reading of what this formulation means in practice:
In other words, the government enacts policies and then “enlists” corporations, N.G.O.s and even individual citizens to enforce them — creating a 360-degree police force made up of the companies you do business with, the civic organizations that you think make up your communal safety net, even your neighbors. What this looks like in practice is a small group of powerful people using public-private partnerships to silence the Constitution, censor ideas they don’t like, deny their opponents access to banking, credit, the internet and other public accommodations in a process of continuous surveillance, constantly threatened cancellation, and social control.
Siegel argues that this approach originated with the war on terror and now applies mechanisms of surveillance and institutional coordination originally intended for countering terrorist extremism to a much wider range of perceived dangers — most of them populist and right-wing (like the trucker protesters in Canada having their bank accounts frozen by Justin Trudeau’s government, say), though under certain circumstances a left-wing group might face cancellation or surveillance as well.
Here Siegel’s argument connects to the other essay, by Nathan Pinkoski for First Things, which argues that after the end of the Cold War and beginning with the administration of Bill Clinton, it was the supposed stewards of the liberal order who first moved in the “postliberal” direction, with right-wing forms of postliberalism trailing behind.
The essence of the initial postliberal movement, in Pinkoski’s view, is the abandonment of the “essential tenet of liberalism: the state-society, public-private distinction,” in favor of a model of politics in which the state acts in a concert with an ever-widening array of nongovernmental partners, philanthropic and academic and corporate and financial, who have more freedom of action because they aren’t bound by the traditional liberal limits on state power.
So for instance, in foreign and economic policy the postliberal shift has involved an increasing role for “publicly mandated, privately imposed sanctions,” in which banks and corporations and financial institutions are expected to put aside neutrality and help the United States government isolate terrorist organizations and rogue governments and eventually major powers like Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This geopolitical expectation has then blurred naturally into related expectations about corporate social responsibility, the idea that “environmental, social and governance,” or E.S.G., norms should guide investing — norms that are themselves defined in hazy interactions between state institutions, activists, foundations and the like.
Meanwhile (this would be my own account, extending Pinkoski’s point) a similar postliberal haze has fallen over domestic cultural and political debates, such that by the time the Trump era arrived it could be hard to determine exactly where the actual points of political decision were in various hot-button debates.
Consider the debate over transgender rights and youth transitioning. Are the key actors the activists demanding a specific line on transgender rights? Or the medical associations charged with establishing best practices for transgender care — standards that were clearly influenced by the activists? Or the social media companies policing their users for transphobia — which seemed reliant on the activists and medical associations to define what counts as acceptable debate? Or the liberal politicians who supported all these movements with very general forms of legislation, like the Equality Act, whose exact intended effects were not always entirely clear?
If you ask, “Who is actually setting policy here?” the answers can be extremely hard to pin down. And both Pinkoski and Siegel would suggest that’s the point of a whole-of-society postliberalism (if I may fuse their language), that by design it insulates would-be reformers and change agents from normal forms of democratic accountability.
And, indeed, it enables them to resist democratic outcomes when those outcomes seem to represent a far-right danger from within — whether through the kinds of civic-mobilization efforts that have sought to quarantine right-wing populist parties in Europe or the Resistance movement (a fascinating blend of outside protest, lawfare and internal bureaucratic opposition) that greeted the first Trump administration in the United States.
This makes it especially interesting to read Pinkoski and Siegel in parallel with arguments valorizing those kinds of Resistance efforts — like a recent essay in our pages by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, professors of government at Harvard, offering advice to would-be resisters of a potential second Trump administration and urging the mobilization of “influential groups and societal leaders,” such as “chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials,” against a Trumpian victory or subsequent authoritarian overreach. A whole-of-society movement, if you will.
To Levitsky and Ziblatt, this kind of movement is potentially the last bulwark of liberalism, and it hasn’t taken shape adequately in Trump-era America as yet. To Pinkoski and Siegel, it has taken shape so thoroughly as to represent — or at least threaten — a potential new post-liberal kind of regime altogether.
You can’t force these competing diagnoses to align, but here is a possible third reading of the story. First, a public-private alignment under left-of-center auspices has definitely been a key feature of post-Cold War politics, and the alignment has become more complete under Trump and especially in the Covid era than Levitsky and Ziblatt quite acknowledge, appearing briefly as something like the kind of new managerial regime that Pinkoski and Siegel critique.
But second, the trends since then, both globally and domestically, suggest that a whole-of-society politics is extremely hard to sustain except under unusual emergency circumstances. Its comprehensive demands generate too many potential loci of resistance; its alignments fracture internally under all kinds of different pressures; and there’s constant incentives for ambitious figures to defect internally (see Musk, Elon) and for outside forces to challenge its attempt at comprehensive rule.
This implies that as we contemplate the next phase of this strange era, liberals probably shouldn’t put too much hope in some still-more-comprehensive anti-Trump mobilization, because it already happened the day before yesterday, it didn’t achieve the full victory, and today the whole-of-society response to populism may have already passed its peak.
By the same token, conservatives shouldn’t look at the trends and tendencies that Pinkoski and Siegel identify and automatically extrapolate them forward toward some kind of soft totalitarianism. Sometimes you recognize the new order fully only once it’s already begun to fragment or dissolve; sometimes — often — the owl of Minerva flies only at dusk.
_________________
С интересом и предвыборными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
How the Home Page Comes Together on Election Night
“It’s about being prepared, but also being able to pivot,” said Justin O’Neill, one of the editors who programs the home page at night.
Election Day is five days away. Every day of the countdown, Inside The Times will share an article about how our election coverage works. Today, learn how the home page will come together on the big night.
On election night, news comes fast and furious. House and Senate seats flip, hundreds of local and state races are called, and the nation edges closer to learning who will lead it for the next four years.
New York Times journalists around the country will cover it all, filing dispatches from battlegrounds, analyzing and reporting real-time data, and putting all the chaos into context for readers.
The top news of the night — and there’s a lot of it — is displayed on The Times’s home page and in the Times app.
Programming the home page on any given day is no easy feat. A team of journalists across four cities and time zones (New York, Los Angeles, London and Seoul) is responsible for selecting the newsiest stories to populate the home page, while also keeping the page accurate, timely and engaging, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
And on election night, things are even trickier. The home page must seamlessly bring together work from different parts of the newsroom, including articles from political reporters; live results graphics and race forecasts from The Times’s election results team; and videos with reporters who break down what’s happening across the country.
“Elections are the most exciting nights in journalism,” said Steve Kenny, a senior editor who oversees news coverage and the home page at night. “I’ve been a part of them since 1980, and they never cease to be thrilling.”
This is how the home page comes together on election night.
A Plan, and Another Plan to Pivot
On Election Day, editors working on the home page in New York assemble on the second and third floors of the Manhattan newsroom around 3 p.m. Then around 6 p.m. — as editors wolf down gyros and baklava (preferred election night takeout) — the first race results begin to roll in. And the night truly begins.
“We always begin such nights with a plan, but the team is expert at remaining fluid — fielding requests from top editors through the night and responding when news breaks,” said Karron Skog, an assistant managing editor who oversees the home page.
As results from dozens of congressional races stream in (for race calls, The Times primarily relies on The Associated Press), home page editors write and rewrite headlines, reconfigure the order of content and add sidebars that contextualize big news moments.
As the night progresses, the home page editors in New York and Los Angeles are joined by colleagues in Seoul and London. Editors in each city communicate with one another in the messaging app Slack, and check in regularly on a continuous video call.
Home page editors are also in constant communication with journalists on the Politics team, who produce the bulk of the articles that appear on the page.
“They’re answering our questions, as well as helping us come up with headlines and framing that’s fresh and accurate,” said Justin O’Neill, the deputy home page editor at night, adding that good home page headlines are brief, fair, conversational and publish quickly — but not at the expense of accuracy.
“You want to write as succinctly as possible,” he said. “But above all, you have to stick to the reporting and make sure not to go too far or jump the gun.”
Mr. O’Neill needs to ensure that the news presented on the home page remains organized and up-to-the-minute, while also staying on top of unexpected developments.
“It’s about being prepared, but also being able to pivot,” he added.
Deploying Data and Visuals
Much of the home page on election night is dominated by graphics and other visuals, including the Needle, a data visualization that looks like a car’s speedometer. The Needle, powered by the Election Analytics department, which works on statistical models for election night, will share The Times’s race forecasts, based on statistical analysis of votes that are counted and estimates of those to come.
An interactive map of the United States will also populate the home page; states will appear red or blue as Electoral College votes are confirmed.
Much of the visual work is overseen by Wilson Andrews, a deputy editor in The Times’s Graphics department, who has led the election results operations since 2020.
He and his team prepare for election night months in advance. In run-throughs in the weeks leading up to the big day, they rehearse dozens of hypothetical scenarios to stress test the presentation of graphics and data for any possible permutation.
“We prepare for different moments in the vote count,” Mr. Andrews said, “from the first results reported in the early states, to when things really ramp up between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., and throughout the night until the next morning.”
The home page will highlight real-time results. But the team is careful to always put numbers into context, to explain what we know and don’t know about the count at different points.
“This is important because the order that votes are reported often means that early returns are unreliable as a guide for where the race will end up,” said Mr. Andrews, whose team will embed reporter commentary alongside graphics, to ensure readers are getting expert analysis.
When Night Turns to Morning
The night — now, morning — remains intense until 2 or 3 a.m. when the vote count begins to slow. But it’s hardly over: The race for president often isn’t called until well after midnight, or sometimes even days later, as in 2020, when Joe Biden was declared the winner four days after Election Day.
But The Times will be ready whenever the call comes. Reporters have written articles for both outcomes — a Kamala Harris victory or a Donald J. Trump win — and editors stand ready to publish articles as soon as the result is official. The home page can transform in a matter of seconds to reflect the news.
“We’ll have a pre-designed banner headline ready to go,” Mr. O’Neill said. “We’ll already have a mock layout for what we intend to do for both possibilities.”
Most of the editors will linger until the early hours of Nov. 6, trickling out into the pre-dawn darkness to board subway trains and hail cabs home as the sun comes up.
It’s an exhausting night for the editors, yes. But ask any one of them — they’d volunteer to do it again in a heartbeat.
“It’s exciting,” Mr. O’Neill said. “It’s like being a small part of history, in a way.”
Elite School Will Provide Counselors for Students Distressed by Election
Attendance on Wednesday, or whatever day the results are announced, is optional for high school students at the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in New York City, families were told.
One of New York City’s elite private schools told families on Thursday that “students who feel too emotionally distressed” the day after Election Day will be excused from classes, and that psychologists will be available during the week to provide counseling.
In a section of an email to members of the school’s community headed “Election Day support,” Stacey Bobo, principal of the upper school at the institution, the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, said that it “acknowledges that this may be a high-stakes and emotional time for our community.”
“No matter the election outcome,” she wrote, the school “will create space to provide students with the support they may need.”
No homework will be assigned on Election Day, the email said, and no student assessments will take place on Wednesday. Excused absences will be allowed on Wednesday or whatever day the election results are announced for students who feel unable to “fully engage in classes.”
Gwen Rocco, a spokeswoman for the school, declined to comment on the email.
Fieldston’s upper school, in Riverdale, a leafy section of the Bronx, includes grades nine through 12. The school also has two elementary schools, one of which is in Manhattan, and a middle school on the Riverdale campus. About 1,700 students attend the schools, and tuition for all grades is $65,540 a year.
The school, which was founded in the late 19th century on principles of social justice, was divided by infighting over pro-Palestinian student activism in the spring, leading to Joe Algrant’s resignation as head of the school in August.
In the email, the school included readings on children and the election, including one from Child Mind Institute about speaking to children about the 2024 election and helping children who feel election-related anxiety.
For some parents, the message reflected the fraught dialogue around the election, which both major political parties have described as a defining decision about the future of American democracy. To others, the school’s approach was emblematic of the inability to bridge the political divide in a moment of unparalleled polarization and suggested a tendency to coddle young people during difficult times.
John Couchman, who has two daughters in the upper school, a sophomore and a senior, said he thought the plan for the election was commendable.
“I think it’s absolutely the right decision,” said Mr. Couchman, who works in finance. “These students are very astute. I think their rights are on the line, whether it’s on election night or in five years, and they know it.”
The comedian Jerry Seinfeld, whose two sons attended Fieldston, said decisions like this one exasperated his family and led his younger son to transfer in the eighth grade to Riverdale Country School, another elite school in the Bronx.
“This is why the kids hated it,” Mr. Seinfeld said in a phone interview on Thursday night. “What kind of lives have these people led that makes them think that this is the right way to handle young people? To encourage them to buckle. This is the lesson they are providing, for ungodly sums of money.”
‘Lincoln vs. Davis,’ a lively history of the Civil War’s chief figures
Nigel Hamilton illuminates the conflict through a joint examination of its commanders.
They were born less than a year and about 100 miles apart, and they departed for their inaugurations on the same day, Feb. 11, 1861. Their differences, of course, dwarf the similarities. Abraham Lincoln, born poor and largely self-educated, served one term in Congress and had minimal military service during the Black Hawk War (he quipped that his combat experience amounted to little more than “a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes”). Jefferson Davis was raised on a plantation and educated at Transylvania University and West Point. He served as a congressman, a senator and as secretary of war, and distinguished himself in battle in Mexico. Lincoln was gangly and unattractive, Davis polished and mannered. In any contest that pitted one against the other, few would have chosen Lincoln.
Focusing on the first two years of the Civil War in “Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents,” Nigel Hamilton alternates between the two men in assessing their actions as commanders in chief. Hamilton, the best-selling author of numerous biographies, including a multi-volume work on Franklin Delano Roosevelt and studies of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, is a lively writer who does not shy away from sharp judgments. For example, after many pages detailing Union Gen. George B. McClellan’s dilatory, deceitful and disastrous actions, Hamilton writes, “It was small wonder that President Lincoln would fire the idiot.”
Historians have puzzled over why it took so long for Lincoln to dismiss McClellan. For Hamilton, Lincoln’s refusal to act reveals chronic uncertainty and a weak will. (He labels him “vacillator in chief.”) But Lincoln had his reasons, including having to consider the opinion of Northern Democrats (Davis, as president of the Confederacy, had no Republicans to worry about when making decisions for his one-party territory). After McClellan, Lincoln moved decisively through other leaders of the Army of the Potomac, appointing and then sacking Ambrose Burnside and Joseph Hooker before settling on George Meade. By contrast, Davis’s military background and sense of loyalty kept him from relieving several key generals of command, to the detriment of the Confederate war effort.
Hamilton portrays Davis as more effective than Lincoln, at least to start. Davis understood that while the Union possessed superior resources, the South had the advantage of being on the defensive. Confederates triumphed at Manassas and elsewhere in the eastern theater and successfully defended Richmond. Davis’s mistake, “a colossal error of judgment,” Hamilton argues, was to shift his position and allow Gen. Robert E. Lee to launch a northward invasion into Maryland in September 1862.
Lincoln too would dramatically transform his side’s military strategy. Much to the dismay of abolitionists, and biographer Hamilton as well, Lincoln initially refused to take direct action to emancipate the enslaved in the Confederacy. Radical Republicans were especially enraged when, in September 1861, Lincoln forced Gen. John C. Frémont to rescind Frémont’s unauthorized order declaring martial law and freeing the enslaved in Missouri. Lincoln offered the legal and political argument that the order stood outside military necessity and served only to alienate the four slave states remaining in the Union, of which Missouri was one. Within a year, though, he decided on an Emancipation Proclamation that would liberate most of the enslaved people in the Confederacy; the multifaceted story of how he changed his mind, pieces of which are told in Hamilton’s book, is one of the most absorbing in all of Lincoln scholarship.
“In truth,” Hamilton writes, “Lincoln had really no idea what he must do to win the war.” But “Davis had had no idea how to win the war, either.” These thoughts capture a truism — much of what we think about the past comes from understanding it backward. Neither Lincoln nor Davis, in the moment, knew what might work or what needed to be done or how to do it. This is why counterfactuals are so prominent in considerations of the war. What if Lincoln had fired McClellan earlier? What if Davis had stopped Lee from invading Maryland? What if Lincoln had acted sooner against slavery? Hamilton is keenly attuned to the way hindsight can both enlighten and obscure, and he peppers the narrative with questions and retrospective speculations, sometimes excessively so.
Enlivening “Lincoln vs. Davis” is a cast of characters who offer contrasting viewpoints of the historical action: These include the abolitionist Frederick Douglass; Count Adam Gurowski, a Polish-born diplomat; Confederate War Department clerk John Beauchamp Jones; Irish journalist William Howard Russell; and Elizabeth Keckley, a formerly enslaved woman who served as seamstress first to Davis’s wife, Varina, and then to Mary Todd Lincoln. Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Lincoln are central to the story, devoted wives who each suffered the loss of a child while serving as first ladies to their warring husbands.
There have been scores of books on Lincoln and Davis, but few that examine them jointly. Hamilton’s uncommon approach helps illuminate an observation once made by the historian David Potter, who suggested that “if the Union and the Confederacy had changed presidents with one another, the Confederacy might have won its independence.” The statement invites us to identify the qualities that distinguished Lincoln from Davis. There are many, but none more instructive than this: Over the course of four years, Lincoln grew into the job of president and commander in chief, whereas Davis remained set in his ways. This sweeping dual biography succeeds in dramatizing the reasons one triumphed and the other failed.
_________________
С интересом и предвыборными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
As Russia Advances, U.S. Fears Ukraine Has Entered a Grim Phase
Weapons supplies are no longer Ukraine’s main disadvantage, American military officials say.
Damage from a Russian bombing attack in Sloviansk, Ukraine, last month. Ukraine is losing territory in the east, and its forces inside Russia have been partially pushed back.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
American military and intelligence officials have concluded that the war in Ukraine is no longer a stalemate as Russia makes steady gains, and the sense of pessimism in Kyiv and Washington is deepening.
The dip in morale and questions about whether American support will continue pose their own threat to Ukraine’s war effort. Ukraine is losing territory in the east, and its forces inside Russia have been partially pushed back.
The Ukrainian military is struggling to recruit soldiers and equip new units. The number of its soldiers killed in action, about 57,000, is half of Russia’s losses but still significant for the much smaller country.
Russia’s shortages of soldiers and supplies have also grown worse, Western officials and other experts said. And its gains in the war have come at great cost.
If U.S. support for Ukraine remains strong until next summer, Kyiv could have an opportunity to take advantage of Russia’s weaknesses and expected shortfalls in soldiers and tanks, American officials say.
U.S. government analysts concluded this summer that Russia was unlikely to make significant gains in Ukraine in the coming months, as its poorly trained forces struggled to break through Ukrainian defenses. But that assessment proved wrong.
Russian troops have advanced in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. They have clawed back more than a third of the territory that Ukrainian forces seized in a surprise offensive in the Kursk region of western Russia this year. The number of Russian drone strikes across Ukraine has increased from 350 in July to 750 in August and 1,500 in September.
“The situation is tense,” said a Ukrainian major stationed on the Ukrainian side of the border near Kursk who goes by the call sign Grizzly. “We are constantly losing previously occupied positions, the enemy has an advantage in men and artillery, and we are trying to hold the line.”
Gone is the Russian force that repeatedly stumbled as it invaded Ukraine in 2022. The Russian military, according to a senior U.S. military official, has evolved and is “on the march.”
As a result, some American intelligence agencies and military officials are pessimistic about Ukraine’s ability to stop Russian advances as Kyiv tries to find ways to build up forces exhausted by nearly three years of war.
Still, Russia has fallen short of its own goals. Most notably, it has not been able to take the city of Pokrovsk, a logistics hub for Ukrainian forces. And independent experts say Russia’s shortages of radar, armored vehicles and, most critically, troops will come to a head next year.
The most important immediate development for Ukraine, however, will not be on the battlefield but at the ballot box in the United States. Former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have laid out very different visions for future American support.
A resident running between buildings during a Russian mortar attack on Siversk, in eastern Ukraine, this week.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Mr. Trump has promised to bring the war to a quick end, and his running mate, Senator JD Vance, has outlined a peace plan that looks a lot like one advanced by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Ms. Harris, on the other hand, has vowed to fight on, warning that if Russia was not stopped in Ukraine, its forces could attack NATO.
The election, and its uncertain outcome, is weighing heavily on Ukrainians.
After a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv last week, American officials said the Ukrainian leader looked worn and stressed, anxious about his troops’ battlefield setbacks as well as the U.S. elections.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine meeting with members of the Nordic Council in Reykjavik, Iceland, this week.Credit...Halldor Kolbeins/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“It’s a very tough fight, and it’s a tough slog,” Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III told reporters traveling with him to Ukraine last week.
In Ukraine, morale is eroding in the face of the Russian drive and a fear that Western support and the flow of supplies are coming to an end.
“It is very difficult at the front now,” said Yevhen Strokan, a senior lieutenant and commander of a combat drone platoon in the 206th Territorial Defense Battalion. “There is a lack of everything, there are few people, there are more Russians and they have more weapons.”
The pessimism extends to Western capitals.
“Everyone is feeling bad across the board,” said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute who has advised the U.S. military. “It has been a very long, hard year and the Russians are still grinding forward.”
The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists. nytimes.com/tips
But Russia, Dr. Kagan said, is trying to suggest its victory is as inevitable as it was in World War II.
“The Russians would like you to believe this is 1944 on the eastern front,” he said. “It isn’t.”
Ukraine’s Problems
A soldier unloading an artillery shell in the Pokrovsk region of Ukraine in September. Russia has not been able to take the city, a logistics hub for Ukrainian forces.Credit...Nicole Tung for The New York Times
Earlier this year, Ukrainian troops were struggling with shortages of ammunition supplies amid U.S. delays in approving more assistance.
Even after Congress approved more aid in April, Ukrainian officials have complained that the arms flowed too slowly, making it hard to resupply the front lines.
“This is the rule of the war,” Mr. Zelensky said this week. “Because you have to count on very specific things in very concrete time, otherwise you can’t manage this situation, you cannot manage defending lines, you can’t secure people, you can’t prepare for the winter.”
On Tuesday, Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser, and Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Mr. Zelensky, met for two hours in Washington. They discussed the Biden administration’s plans to speed artillery systems, armored vehicles and air defense ammunition to Ukraine before the end of the year.
But American military officials say weapons supplies are no longer Ukraine’s main disadvantage.
Ukraine has sharply narrowed Russia’s artillery advantage, U.S. officials said, and Ukrainian soldiers have used explosive drones to lay waste to Russian armored vehicles.
Ukraine’s biggest shortcoming now is troops, U.S. officials said.
Ukrainian officials have struggled to put in place a military draft that brings in enough troops. The country has hesitated to lower the conscription age, worried about the long-term demographic impact. Ukraine has limited itself to what one official called a more “democratic and measured” response to the shortage of troops, but as a result it is running low on soldiers.
A town in the Pokrovsk region destroyed by Russian strikes.Credit...Nicole Tung for The New York Times
Ukraine has used cellphone numbers, email addresses and other electronic means to get additional people to register for the military, U.S. officials said. It has also used more coercive means — like dragging people from concert halls — to find and enlist people eligible for the draft.
While many have signed up for the military out of patriotism, not enough have joined. And Ukraine’s failure to give its soldiers any real breaks from the fighting has discouraged people from serving.
The Pentagon assesses that Ukraine has enough soldiers to fight for six to 12 more months, one official said. After that, he said, it will face a steep shortage.
Ukraine diverted some of its newly created brigades to support the incursion in Kursk instead of using them as originally planned to defend eastern and southern Ukraine or to build up reserves for an expected counteroffensive in 2025, Pentagon officials say.
“They’re working hard to bring more people on board,” Mr. Austin told reporters traveling with him, when asked about the troop shortages. “They’ve got to train those people. They have to regenerate combat power.”
In his meeting with Mr. Zelensky in Kyiv, Mr. Austin underscored the importance of not only defending Pokrovsk and Kursk, but also of “force regeneration and recruitment,” a senior Pentagon official said.
In a separate meeting with their Ukrainian counterparts, Mr. Austin, Christopher G. Cavoli, the top U.S. general in Europe, and other commanders discussed military planning for the winter and the kind of arms and munitions that the United States may send in the next five months, the senior Pentagon official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential discussions.
In an impassioned speech in Kyiv, Mr. Austin condemned naysayers who might seek to end the conflict on Moscow’s terms. He said there was “no silver bullet” to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor.
“What matters is the way that Ukraine fights back,” Mr. Austin said. “And what matters is staying focused on what works.”
He added, “Moscow will never prevail in Ukraine.”
Staggering Losses
An artillery battery in Selydove, in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, last month.Credit...Nicole Tung for The New York Times
A possible opening for Ukraine might be Russia’s low supply of armored vehicles.
To offset its losses of advanced tanks, Russia tapped its huge stocks of far older tanks. But Ukrainian drones have destroyed many of Russia’s armored vehicles, particularly older models.
As a result, U.S. military officials say, Russia has relied on small infantry units to advance in eastern Ukraine. But American officials believe that many of the battlefields have become “a meat grinder” for Russian soldiers.
Mark Rutte, NATO’s new secretary general, said on Monday that more than 600,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured since the start of the war. Those losses are behind North Korea’s deployment of about 10,000 troops to Russia, forces that Moscow wants to use to help push Ukraine out of Kursk, U.S. officials say.
A senior American military official said the decision to bring in those forces was “ill-conceived and desperate.”
Other Western diplomats dispute that the development is a sign of desperation and say it is a move meant to scare the West. Whatever the motivation, U.S. officials acknowledge that Russia is finding more troops and continues to sign up 25,000 to 30,000 new contracted recruits per month.
Russia’s success is partly a result of a shifting recruiting message, as it now relentlessly tells would-be soldiers that the war in Ukraine is really a fight against NATO, U.S. officials said. Russian bonuses have also drastically increased.
By combining these strategies, Mr. Putin may not need to order a politically unpopular broad draft, U.S. military and intelligence officials say.
But Russia’s resources “are finite, and Putin cannot reckon with these costs indefinitely,” the Institute for the Study of War said in a report on Sunday.
Russia’s heavy recruiting has caused other problems. In brief remarks on Monday, Mr. Putin acknowledged a labor shortage. The Institute for the Study of War has repeatedly highlighted reports of industrial factories having to compete with the military, which offers robust bonuses to potential recruits.
Russia has increased its production of missiles, but elsewhere its defense industry is struggling, particularly to build new radar systems. And despite the Russian advances this year, the Ukrainians have continued to thwart some of Moscow’s bigger plans.
Ukraine deflected Russia’s drive to Pokrovsk, pushing the forces southwest of the city.
Oleksandr Shyrshyn, a 30-year-old battalion commander, said it seemed as though Ukraine’s partners had lost interest in the war and were more concerned about relations with Moscow “than justice.”
But despite that, many Ukrainians are not giving up. “Fighting is our only way out,” he said.
Being told to be ‘grateful for the legacy of empire’ is akin to telling us we should accept we’re inferior
There is a lot about life in Britain to be grateful about, says broadcaster and author Mihir Bose, but when Robert Jenrick tells Indians like me that we should show gratitude for being colonised, he might as well be asking us to gather in Westminster Hall to lick his boots
Those who forget the past,” warned George Santayana, “are condemned to repeat it.” And Britain should need no lessons on how to reconcile its history; you only have to walk past the Houses of Parliament to realise that. There stands the statue of Oliver Cromwell, the man who beheaded a king and established a republic. Every year, the Cromwell Society assembles at the statue to celebrate his birthday, yet his body isn’t even there.
After the restoration, Cromwell’s body was dug up from his tomb at Westminster Abbey, his head stuck on top of Westminster Hall, and his body, after being hung at Marble Arch, was dumped in a pit somewhere beneath Hyde Park Corner. His bones lie under the road there to this day. Yet now, whenever the monarch addresses parliament, he passes this statue with no questions asked, showing how a country with no appetite for the return of the republic can still honour the founder of a republic.
In stark contrast, the country is struggling to reconcile its imperial history. This failure is all the more remarkable, as in the nearly 60 years that I have lived in Britain, I have seen it reinvent itself into a much more welcoming country.
I could not have imagined this when I arrived from India in January 1969, nine months after Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, where he called for a policy of repatriation of “coloured” immigrants to be enforced. This was a time when people did not conceal their racism. A landlady in Hampstead told me she could not rent a room to me as her husband would not like an Indian in the house. A white woman ended our relationship because I could not provide her with white babies.
During the first summer of my university holidays, I worked in a factory in Leicester, where the foreman introduced me as “Mick”. This prompted one of his mates to say, “Bloody hell, we’ve now got a coloured Irishman, have we?” and the whole factory floor burst into raucous laughter. In 1980, while travelling on the Piccadilly line, a skinhead punched me in the face, sending my glasses flying. As I bent down to gather them, the rest of the passengers looked on as if they were in a cinema watching a film.
Yet, at the same time that I was being reminded that my skin colour made me an unwelcome outsider – a realisation that was both shocking and difficult to deal with – there were others who reassured me that the cosy image of England I had formed while growing up in India, the land of Shakespeare, Shelley, and cricket on the village greens, was not a complete fantasy. Six weeks after arriving at Loughborough to study, I was elected president of the student union at a university that then had an almost wholly white student population. I was told by one student that she had voted for me because I had a trustworthy face and would not run away with the union’s funds.
Journalist Mihir Bose first arrived in England from India in January 1969 (Getty)
I could not have imagined then that Indian food would one day become the national cuisine. I remember landladies seeking reassurance that if they rented me a room, I would not cook Indian meals, as they could not abide the smell. Nor could I have predicted that five years after being turned down for admission to Cardiff University’s journalism course, I would fulfil my dream of becoming a journalist. Doors in the media would open to me in the UK in ways they never would have in the land of my birth. Yes, there was discrimination, with most Fleet Street sports editors, who, while prepared to believe my Indian background meant I knew about cricket, were unable to accept that I could possibly know anything about football.
The exception was John Lovesey, sports editor of The Sunday Times, whose first assignment for me was to cover Chelsea vs Tottenham – a team I had been a fan of since the age of 14. In 1981, when my life was threatened by racist fans, Lovesey devoted a whole page to my experiences, including the time an Arsenal supporter chased me down the train shouting, “C**n, c**n, hit the c**n with a baseball bat”, then a popular football song.
Mihir, aged 7, in Mumbai just as he started at St Xavier’s School (Mihir Bose)
I have found that an Englishman or woman’s home, far from being a castle where strangers are unwelcome, can be a place where they can warmly invite in a journalist who they have never met and whose name they cannot pronounce. This has included great writers like Malcolm Muggeridge and socialites like Lady Diana Cooper, who agreed to be interviewed by me at her home overlooking London’s Little Venice. When I left she handed me a signed copy of her autobiography which I still treasure to this day. In India, a lady of that status would have been surrounded by “chammas”, courtiers, who would have denied me access unless I had come highly recommended, and the lady would never have given me a present.
Confronted by racism in the early years in the UK, I agreed with the French Afro-Caribbean philosopher Frantz Fanon that colonialism forced “the people it dominated to ask the question constantly: ‘In reality, who am I?’”. Now, I do not see being asked “but where are you really from?” as all people of colour invariably are, as racist. Britain has helped me discover my ancestral roots and be proud of them and I do not feel any shame in saying I’m of Bengali origin and a Hindu, something I would have denied in 1969, so keen was I to be accepted by the natives.
An illustration of a British family celebrating Christmas in India, circa 1900 (Getty)
In fact, I now feel sorry for the many Britons who were born here, but who feel alienated from their roots and are afraid to even know their past. An acquaintance of my wife, when told about my memoir, immediately asked: “Does it say bad things about Britain? Then I don’t want to know.”
People like that see anything that suggests British imperial rule as anything but a moral blessing as questioning the very foundations of Western civilisation. They prefer polemical pamphlets more suited to Speakers’ Corner eulogising imperial rule rather than well-researched histories which clearly show that there was little to be proud of. Robert Jenrick, hoping to be the leader of the Conservatives, has even gone further and claimed former colonies should be grateful for the legacy of the empire.
How George Orwell would have laughed at such an assertion.
Bose’s book, a reflection on migration and British society (Hurst Publishers)
The greatest political writer of the 20th century described the empire as “in essence nothing but mechanisms for exploiting cheap coloured labour”. Orwell, having seen the empire first hand, came to this conclusion in July 1939, two months before the Second World War started.
That a man like Jenrick, who hopes to lead the country, has evidently not read this seminal essay is shameful. Reading Jenrick’s claims I wonder how he suggests that, as a descendant of the conquered, I should express my gratitude. Should I, as some of my ancestors did when Britain ruled India, touch Jenrick’s feet? Maybe he could gather us, the children of the conquered, in Westminster Hall and get us to do just that. It would make great television.
The fact is the empire was meant to make profits for the conquerors – and it did. While there was a collateral benefit, for instance, railways in India constructed to better facilitate the transportation of British troops necessary to maintain control, it was never meant to be and was never a sort of Victorian NGO.
Mahatma Gandhi fasts in protest against British rule after his release from prison in Poona, India (Getty)
The British empire’s “success” story was, as Norman Manley, Jamaica’s first and only premier put it, in nurturing a “sense of inferiority in the governed”. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, put this well when he wrote that “most of us accepted it as natural and inevitable” that Indians were second rate. “Greater than any victory of arms or diplomacy was this psychological triumph of the British in India”.
The problem for Jenrick and his ilk is that, unlike Manley and Nehru, today’s generation no longer accepts they are inferior to whites. They want to reclaim their history and present it as they see it, rather than as the version that is presented to them. In the process, they are discovering some very troubling facts that need to be acknowledged, not denied. I accept that the descendants of the conquerors cannot be asked to apologise for their ancestors or pay compensation. But they need to understand what their ancestors did and not provide excuses for the dark deeds or present an edited version which is far from the whole truth.
Unless they do, the process of reinventing this country into a truly multi-racial society will not be complete. Until we recognise the hard part of our collective history, there will always be a risk of going backwards and undoing all the progress that has been made since I arrived in 1969.
_________________
С интересом и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
The Price of Principle Is Dwarfed by the Cost of Capitulation in Ukraine
...
By Lloyd J. Austin III November 1, 2024
I was in Kyiv last week for my fourth visit to Ukraine as Secretary of Defense. And being in Kyiv always drives home the enormity of the stakes in Ukraine’s fight for freedom.
We must never forget how this war began. For years, Russian President Vladimir Putin had harassed and assaulted the independent nation-state of Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, he crossed the line into all-out invasion, and the Kremlin started the largest war in Europe since World War II.
When the largest military in Europe becomes a force of aggression, the whole continent feels the shock. When a permanent member of the UN Security Council tries to deny self-rule to more than 40 million people, the whole world feels the blow. And when a dictator puts his imperial fantasies ahead of the rights of a free people, the whole international system feels the outrage.
That’s why nations of goodwill from every corner of the planet have risen to Ukraine’s defense. And that’s why the United States and our allies and partners have proudly become the arsenal of Ukrainian democracy. America’s values call us to stand by a peaceful democracy fighting for its life. And America’s security demands that we stand up to Putin’s aggression.
UKRAINE UNBOWED
Ukraine matters to U.S. security for four blunt reasons. Putin’s war is a direct threat to European security, a clear challenge to our NATO allies, an attack on our shared values, and a frontal assault on the rules-based international order that keeps us all safe.
Yet after nearly 1000 days of war, Putin hasn’t achieved a single one of his strategic objectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t flee. Kyiv didn’t fall. And Ukraine didn’t fold.
Instead, Russia has paid a staggering price for Putin’s imperial folly, with hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties since February 2022 and more than $200 billion squandered. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russian losses in just the first year of Putin’s war were more than Moscow’s losses in all of its conflicts since World War II—combined.
Ukraine has suffered terribly at Putin’s hands. But as I saw again in Kyiv last week, Ukraine stands unbowed—and even strengthened. Ukraine’s fight began with soldiers setting tank traps on the streets of Kyiv and ordinary citizens making Molotov cocktails to defend their homes. It continues today with a battle-tested Ukrainian military and security forces—and a roaring Ukrainian defense industrial base. Ukrainian factories are now pumping out some of the best drones in the world, and experienced Ukrainian air defenders are protecting their forces and their families.
Since April 2022, I have been convening the Ukraine Defense Contact Group—a coalition of some 50 countries from around the world determined to help Ukraine fight Putin’s aggression. The Contact Group has met 24 times now, and its members have provided more than $51 billion in direct security assistance to Ukraine.
I’m proud that the United States is doing our part, committing more than $58 billion in security assistance to Ukraine and delivering two Patriot batteries, other air defense systems, 24 HIMARS rocket systems, thousands of armored vehicles, and millions of rounds of artillery. This is a very real financial commitment. But for anyone who thinks that American leadership is expensive, consider the price of American retreat. In the face of aggression, the price of principle is always dwarfed by the cost of capitulation.
America’s allies and partners are sharing the burden of our common security. As a percentage of GDP, a dozen U.S. allies and partners now provide more security assistance to Ukraine than the United States does. Germany alone has provided or committed to military assistance to Ukraine valued at close to $31 billion. And through the Contact Group and its “capability coalitions,” Ukraine’s friends are now forging an unprecedented, coordinated, 13-country drive to increase industrial production, meet Ukraine’s battlefield requirements, and build up the Ukrainian force to deter and repel Russian aggression in the future. Not since World War II has America systematically rallied so many countries to provide such a range of industrial and military assistance for a partner in need.
THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF A JUST CAUSE
There is no silver bullet. No single capability will turn the tide. No one system will end Putin’s assault. What matters is the combined effects of Ukraine’s military capabilities—and staying focused on what works.
The spirit of Ukraine has inspired the world. It has reminded us all to never take our freedom for granted. We fully understand the moral chasm between aggressor and defender. We will not be gulled by the frauds and falsehoods of the Kremlin’s apologists. And we will continue to defend the Ukrainian people’s right to live in security and freedom.
Putin’s assault is a warning. It is a sneak preview of a world built by tyrants and thugs—a chaotic, violent world carved into spheres of influence; a world where bullies trample their smaller neighbors; and a world where aggressors force free people to live in fear.
So we face a hinge in history. We can continue to stand firm against Putin’s aggression—or we can let Putin have his way and condemn our children and grandchildren to live in a far bloodier and more dangerous world. If Ukraine falls under Putin’s boot, all of Europe will fall under Putin’s shadow. Putin is not just hammering at the norms of the international system built at such terrible cost by the Allies after World War II. He is shoving us all toward a world where might makes right and where empire trumps sovereignty. So we must continue to squarely face the specter of today’s aggressive Russia, backed by other autocrats, from North Korea to Iran.
Peace is not self-executing. Order does not preserve itself. And the principles of freedom, sovereignty, and human rights do not uphold themselves. So U.S. President Joe Biden has chosen the path of mutual responsibility and common security.
Ukraine does not belong to Putin. Ukraine belongs to the Ukrainian people. And Moscow will never prevail in Ukraine.
Putin thought Ukraine would surrender. He was wrong. Putin thought our democracies would cave. He was wrong. Putin thought the free world would cower. He was wrong. And Putin thinks he will win. He is wrong.
As a military man, I’ve learned to never underestimate the strategic advantage of a just cause. And I’ve learned that free people will always refuse to replace an open order of rules and rights with one dictated by force and fear.
Former North Korean soldiers on why troops will volunteer to fight in Ukraine
Thousands of young North Korean elite troops sent to Russia lack combat experience and local knowledge
The thousands of young soldiers North Korea has sent to Russia, reportedly to help fight against Ukraine, are mostly elite special forces, but that hasn't stopped speculation they'll be slaughtered because they have no combat experience, no familiarity with the terrain and will likely be dropped onto the most ferocious battlefields.
That may be true, and soon. Observers say the troops are already arriving at the front. From the North Korean perspective, however, these soldiers might not be as miserable as outsiders think. They may, in fact, view their Russian tour with pride and as a rare chance to make good money, see a foreign country for the first time, and win preferred treatment for their families back home, according to former North Korean soldiers.
“They are too young and won't understand exactly what it means. They'll just consider it an honor to be selected as the ones to go to Russia among the many North Korean soldiers,” said Lee Woong-gil, a former member of the same special forces unit, the Storm Corps. He came to South Korea in 2007. “But I think most of them won’t likely come back home alive.”
Worries about North Korea’s likely participation in the Russian-Ukraine war were highlighted this week when the Pentagon said North Korea has sent about 10,000 troops to Russia, and that they will likely fight against Ukraine “over the next several weeks.” Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Monday that some North Korean military units were already in Russia’s Kursk border region, where Russia has been struggling against a Ukraine incursion.
North Korea's troop deployment could mark a serious escalation of the almost three-year war. It caught many outside observers by surprise because North Korea has its own security headache, a festering standoff with the United States and South Korea over its nuclear program.
Large North Korean troop casualties would be a major political blow for the country’s 40-year-old ruler, Kim Jong Un. But experts say Kim may see this as a way to get much needed foreign currency and security support from Russia in return for joining Russia's war against Ukraine.
“Kim Jong Un is taking a big gamble. If there are no large casualty numbers, he will get what he wants to some extent. But things will change a lot if many of his soldiers die in battle,” said Ahn Chan-il, a former North Korean army first lieutenant who is now head of the World Institute for North Korean Studies think tank in Seoul.
The Storm Corps, also known as the 11th Corps, is one of Kim’s top units. Its main missions would be infiltrating agents into South Korea, blowing up important facilities in the South and assassinating key figures in the event of war on the Korean Peninsula.
Lee, who served in the Storm Corps in 1998-2003, recalled that his unit received better food and supplies than other units, but many members still suffered from malnutrition and tuberculosis.
Despite a gradual economic recovery in North Korean over the past 30 years, defectors say the average monthly wage for ordinary North Korean workers and soldiers is less than $1. They say many people engage in capitalist market activities to make a living because the country's state rationing system remains largely broken.
Russia is expected to pay all the costs related to the deployment of North Korean troops, including their wages, which observers estimate will be at least $2,000 per month for each person. About 90% to 95% of their stipends will likely go to Kim’s coffers, and the rest to the soldiers. This means one year of service in Russia would earn a North Korean soldier $1,200 to $2,400. That's big enough to prompt many young soldiers to volunteer for risky Russian tours, former soldiers say.
Ahn said North Korea will likely offer other incentives meant to elevate the social standings of soldiers, such as membership in the ruling Workers’ Party and the right to move to Pyongyang, the country’s showcase capital. Kang Mi-Jin, a defector who runs a company analyzing North Korea’s economy, said even family members of soldiers sent to Russia could be given benefits such as good houses or entrance to good universities.
Choi Jung-hoon, a former first lieutenant in North Korea’s army, said serving on foreign soil will attract many soldiers who are eager to see other countries for the first time.
North Koreans are barred from accessing foreign news and need state approval to move from one province to another within the country. North Korean construction, logging and other workers sent abroad to bring in foreign currency have often been called “slaves” by international human rights groups. But defectors testify that such overseas jobs are often better than staying in North Korea, and many used bribery and family connections to get them.
“North Korean soldiers would see going to Russia as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” Ahn said.
Ahn and other observers say such views could change if the soldiers see colleagues dying in large numbers. They say many North Korean soldiers could surrender to Ukraine forces and ask for resettlement in South Korea.
North Korean soldiers have been trained on the Korean Peninsula's mountainous terrain and are not familiar with the largely flat plain battlefields in the Russian-Ukraine war. They also don't understand modern warfare, including drone use, because North Korea hasn’t fought a big battle since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, experts say.
“My heart ached,” said Choi, now leader of an activist group in Seoul, when he saw a Ukraine video purportedly showing undersized North Korean soldiers believed to be in their late teens or early 20s.
"None would think they are going to Russia to die. ... But I think they're cannon fodder because they will surely be killed when they're sent to the most dangerous sites,” Choi said.
Leader Kim Jong Un may also be hoping that his troop offer will push Russia to share sophisticated and highly sensitive technology that he needs to perfect his nuclear-capable missiles. That transfer could depend on how long the war continues and how many more troops Kim will send.
Nam Sung-wook, a former director of a think tank run by South Korea’s spy agency, said North Korea will likely get hundreds of millions of dollars because of the soldiers' wages. The soldiers will get direct experience of modern warfare but will likely die in large numbers, and Russia will be reluctant to hand over its high-tech missile technology, he said.
“North Korea will continue to hide its troop dispatches from its own people because the public will be agitated if they know their soldiers are being sent abroad to be killed,” said Nam, who is now a professor at Korea University in South Korea.
_________________
С интересом и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Уровень доступа: Вы не можете начинать темы, Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения, Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения, Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения, Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
Антитрендами наружной рекламы в текущем году стали прямолинейность и чрезмерная перегруженность сообщений. Наружная реклама продолжает показывать рост: число рекламных конструкций за последний год увеличилось более чем на 2 тысячи.
В компании Sellty спрогнозировали развитие рынка электронной коммерции в сегменте СМБ на ближайший год. По оценке основателя Sellty Марии Бар-Бирюковой, число собственных интернет-магазинов среднего, малого и микробизнеса продолжит расти и увеличится минимум на 40% до конца 2025 года. Компании будут и дальше развиваться на маркетплейсах, но станут чаще комбинировать несколько каналов продаж.
10 сентября – Всемирный день психического здоровья. Специально к этой дате компания HINT опросила коллег в сфере маркетинга, рекламы и пиара, чтобы понять, как представители этих профессий могут помочь себе и другим поддержать в норме психическое здоровье.
Как не ошибиться с выбором формата обучения и предстать перед будущим работодателем успешным специалистом. Директор по маркетингу ведущего IT-холдинга Fplus Ирина Васильева рассказала, на что теперь смотрят работодатели при приеме на работу, как нестандартно можно развиваться в профессии и стоит ли действующим маркетологам обучаться на онлайн-курсах.
Эксперты ЮKassa (сервис для приёма онлайн- и офлайн-платежей финтех-компании ЮMoney) и RetailCRM (решение для управления заказами и клиентскими данными) провели исследование* и выяснили, почему пользователи не завершают покупки в интернет-магазинах. По данным опроса, две трети респондентов хотя бы раз оставляли заказы незавершёнными, чаще всего это электроника и бытовая техника, одежда и товары для ремонта. Вернуться к брошенным корзинам многих мотивируют скидки, кэшбэк и промокоды.
Чего не хватает радио, чтобы увеличить свою долю на рекламном рынке? Аудиопиратство: угроза или возможности для отрасли? Каковы первые результаты общероссийской кампании по продвижению индустриального радиоплеера? Эти и другие вопросы были рассмотрены на конференции «Радио в глобальной медиаконкуренции», спикерами и участниками которой стали эксперты ГПМ Радио.
Деловая программа 28-й международной специализированной выставки технологий и услуг для производителей и заказчиков рекламы «Реклама-2021» открылась десятым юбилейным форумом «Матрица рекламы». Его организовали КВК «Империя» и «Экспоцентр».
28 марта в Центральном доме художника состоялась 25-ая выставка маркетинговых коммуникаций «Дизайн и реклама NEXT». Одним из самых ярких её событий стал День социальной рекламы, который организовала Ассоциация директоров по коммуникациям и корпоративным медиа России (АКМР) совместно с АНО «Лаборатория социальной рекламы» и оргкомитетом LIME.
На VII Международном форуме «Матрица рекламы», прошедшем в ЦВК «Экспоцентр» в рамках международной выставки «Реклама-2018», большой интерес у профессиональной аудитории вызвала VI Конференция «Интернет-реклама».
RSS