“Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State,” editorial, The New York Times, September 29 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0):
President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.
This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives. …
Mr. Putin fancies himself a man on a mission to restore Russia to greatness. Russia could indeed be a great force for good. Yet his unconscionable behavior — butchering civilians in Syria and Ukraine, annexing Crimea, computer-hacking American government agencies, crushing dissent at home — suggests that the furthest thing from his mind is becoming a constructive partner in the search for peace.
“How the International Media Enables Russian Aggression in Ukraine,” by Peter Dickinson, Atlantic Council, August 3 (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/how-the-international-media-enables-russian-aggression-in-ukraine):
…the international media has played a key role in creating the ambiguity that has allowed Russia’s hybrid war [in Ukraine] to succeed. Why has the media been so cautious about Russia’s role in the conflict? It is not due to a lack of evidence. Proof of Russian involvement has been overwhelming since the early days of the fighting in eastern Ukraine. Almost all of the initial leaders of the breakaway republics were Russian citizens. International journalists themselves have witnessed convoys full of Russian weapons crossing the border and interviewed Russian officers in the conflict zone, while even pro-Kremlin reporters in Ukraine have slipped up by broadcasting footage of equipment only available to the Russian military. Online sleuths have produced convincing evidence of cross-border Russian artillery attacks on Ukrainian positions, while the social media selfies of Russian soldiers have exposed their deployment in Ukraine. …
Nevertheless, most international news outlets continue to hedge their bets. Many report on “pro-Russian forces,” despite the redundancy of such terms when discussing Russian nationals. Heavyweights like the BBC and Canada’s CBC acknowledge the Russian factor while still referring to a “Ukrainian civil war.” …
… One new way of describing the military units in east Ukraine could be “hybrid Russian forces”: this would highlight Russia’s overall responsibility, while acknowledging that the forces in question are mixed in composition and differ from conventional armed forces. Likewise, what is variously called “the Ukraine crisis” or “the Ukraine conflict” would be more accurately described as a “Russian hybrid war.”
…The international media has played a key role in enabling Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine; it can now help to turn the tide by adopting terminology that accurately captures the realities behind the bloodshed.