A Letter The Economist Conveniently Ignored

Earlier in July, The Economist published a guest essay, “Why a broken Russia is bad for the world.” It’s described as written by Andrey Melnichenko, a sanctioned Russian billionaire whose businesses have helped finance Russia’s war against Ukraine. His life and fortune depend on Putin. He argues that the world should move on. It’s a coup for Russia, but The Economist treats the 3,073 words as a scoop – a magazine cover, two accompanying editorial pieces, totaling 8,550 words, 60 hours of interviews, a video podcast by the editor-in-chief, two more editors, and its Ukraine correspondent, a shorter video excerpt of the podcast, and at least one other video, with promotion through The Economist’s YouTube channel.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. My very extended analysis of the Russian malware is here. It was addressed to Arkady Ostrovsky on July 21, the key editor in the matter. It remains unanswered, as is my separate Letter to the Editor that preceded it and which is set forth below: Your cover story, “Why a broken Russia is bad for the world,” says it all. Not “Russia’s war is criminal.” Not “Russia should withdraw.” Not “Russia must atone.” Andrey Melnichenko finances Russia’s eliminationist war against Ukraine, a top-of-the pyramid oligarch who keeps his life and fortune at Putin’s pleasure. Your repeated terminology, “industrialist,” downgrades the criminality. Would you have featured a Thyssenkrupp CEO mouthing Nazi Germany’s “security” lament? “Industrialists” were tried at Nurenberg; some were executed. Remember “Never Again”? Other Topics of Interest Hysteria in Russia: ‘Nowhere to Hide’ as Putin’s Palace Falls Within Ukraine’s Reach As Ukrainian drones push deeper into Russia, even the skies near Putin’s Black Sea sanctuary are exposing the collapse of Moscow’s myth of a secure rear. In 3,000 words, there’s no “invasion.” No condemnation of Moscow’s literal and proudly self-declared genocidal crusade against Ukrainians, trafficked children, sadistic torture POWs. Writing in the bland register of physics and systems theory, Melnichenko hardwires it as a downgraded “tragedy” that simply happened. Like a bad weather event. The war is “in,” not “against,” Ukraine. Not a syllable about Russia’s sneering rampage through Europe. Remember Litvinenko, Skripal? Melnichenko invokes Germany and Japan as models of postwar reintegration and erasing what preceded: occupation, demilitarization, decolonization, tribunals, reparations. Restrictions on an aggressor’s sovereignty have always been the required consequence for the predatory state, yet Melnichenko demands unconditional “sovereignty” for Russia. It’s a cut-out for Russia from the world order it signed up for, dynamites, then cynically reprograms as code for a free hand – from annexation to atrocities to hybrid attacks against Europe. There’s no foaming vitriol. It’s smooth, polished, thoroughly business-like. Like a real-estate deal. Melnichenko is the same erudite whisperer as Kirill Dmitriev is to Steve Witkoff. That’s craft. Braided into the calm prose is the threat: push Russia too far, and “consequences are physically irreversible.” Prudence requires the West to “step back from the abyss.” That’s nuclear blackmail in a lab coat. His closing bait, “predictability,” is the password for capitulating to whatever map Russia leaves behind: continuing incineration of Ukrainians, no tribunal, a rebuilt military for the next assault, no reckoning. Ironically, the one thing history has proven is that Russia is indeed exquisitely predictable. The Economist did not merely publish this but amplified it –an editor’s podcast, thousands more words of accompanying editorial coverage, video packages, a cover. It’s an institutional legitimization of an internationally indicted war criminal steering our synapses. Platforming Melnichenko without confrontation is not journalism or balance. Its naivete, moral aphasia, and a mind-bending failure. You owe readers better than inoculating them against reality. Victor Rud Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs; Ukrainian American Bar Association, Member; International Supervisory Council, Holodomor Genocide Museum, Kyiv; Senior Fellow and board Member, Centre for Eastern European Democracy The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post. Victor Rud Victor Rud is a board member of the Ukrainian American Bar Association and chairman of its Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rud has more than 35-years of experience as an international attorney. Before Ukrainian independence, he was co-counsel, in the West, for members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Accords Watch Group, and for other dissidents in Ukraine. He was also counsel to the US Public Member to the Helsinki Accords Review Conference in Madrid. He is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Duke Law School.