Brief Analysis
Ismay’s Article
For this comparative analysis, two articles from The New York Times, one day apart, are offered. Both articles focus on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and cover this geopolitical issue from different angles. Ismay (2022) focuses on Russia’s use of the uncrewed Shahed-136 collision-exploding aircraft purchased from Iran. The article briefly introduces the reader to an overview of unmanned quadcopters, their advantages, and their potential use in any armed conflict. The kamikaze drones, as Ismay (2022) calls them, are then contrasted with the American and Turkish-made flying devices that Ukrainian forces use against the Russian army.
Interestingly, the author points to the likelihood of depletion of high-precision weapons by Russia, which is justified by massive drone strikes: “This is more about a losing power trying to make up for its battlefield losses by sparking fear from a new kind of weapon targeting civilians” (para. 20). Thus, Ismay’s article is devoted to an overview of the use of unmanned systems in armed conflicts and, in particular, to the contrast between drones used by the Russian and Ukrainian sides.
Barnes’ Article
The second piece highlights the problem of the current dynamics of the conflict and points to Russia’s weakness, which could be used for an intense offensive by Ukrainian forces. In this article, Barnes (2022) refers to intelligence and statements from officials indicating that Ukraine’s position is strengthening compared to the retreat of the Russian army. After prolonged summer fighting, Barnes points out that the Ukrainian army has taken an offensive stance and is actively reclaiming previously occupied territory. These factors for this claim are the weakening forces of the Russian army, mass casualties and deaths of soldiers, and logistical problems of supplying mobilized citizens.
Barnes postulates that the current weakening is not a significant predictor of defeat in the conflict and that Russia still has a chance since “a key strength across generations of the Russian army is to bring up more equipment and more soldiers at even desperate moments” (para. 15). Thus, the central message of this journalistic piece is to study the current positions of the two parties to the conflict, to identify their strengths and weaknesses, to review the official data and to forecast the further course of the conflict.
Reason Behind the Article Choice
The two articles described were chosen for a reason. As part of our training modules, we studied how the historical context shapes the political behavior of leaders and assessed the importance of constitutional rights. We also developed our need for political analysis and the study of reporting techniques.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is one of the most pressing events of the current year, which is why there are so many topical analyses. One of President Putin’s goals is the denazification of Ukrainian territory, motivated by the protection of the historical interests of the Russian population of Ukraine (Fellow, 2022). Finally, the armed conflict is tightly associated with a temporary violation of both sides’ constitutional rights to freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the right to life. Thus, not only is this one of the most relevant and thought-provoking topics for political analysis, but it is also consistent with the topics presented in the study.
Comparison
Similarities
One of the main similarities between the two journalistic pieces is the choice of a common theme that the authors differentially address. The issue of armed conflict is a significant geopolitical issue that has already demonstrated a global impact on the economic, cultural, social, and political spheres of life in all countries, without exception. Regarding this conflict, people take different positions and can sympathize with each side, depending on how the material is presented and how the propaganda works. While Ismay mainly covers this conflict’s technical side, Barnes makes semi-abstract arguments and predictions about the dynamics ahead.
However, this does not mean that Barnes, unlike Ismay, does not address the facts. Both authors use facts about battles in specific territories and figures to calculate casualties or the number of drones. At the same time, in both articles, the idea of the weakened position of the Russian army, expressed in the forced need to use massive rather than high-precision strikes on Ukraine and mass casualties, slips through.
Differences
Meanwhile, the articles are strikingly different in their conclusion about the current weakening of the Russian army. Ismay concludes his piece with the above quote as if to hint that the further dynamics of the conflict are foregone: Ukraine has some of the highest-precision weapons supplied and the support of Western powers. This should lead the reader to believe Russia may capitulate within the next few months. In contrast, Barnes points out that the current weakening does not mean defeat, as the central command can use the following months to regroup, train, and develop new strategies. In other words, both authors disagree on how this conflict might end and what to expect in the coming months.
Both journalistic articles have convincing arguments, and reading them separately may lead the reader to different thoughts: in fact, this is the action of propaganda disguised as journalistic opinion. No one knows precisely which side will be in a winning position in the future and how the course of the armed conflict will generally develop in the following months, so journalists can only give forecasts and be guided by the opinions of officials of both sides. Therefore, it is important to read such materials comprehensively, assessing all possible aspects of such a sensitive topic.
Based on this, articles are read together to give good ideas on the problem and make the reader think and analyze. The opinions of both journalists provided good insight into the confrontation between the two armies. However, they could have strengthened this by briefly introducing the reader to the problem at the beginning, for example, in a few sentences.
Opinion
Barnes’ article is more impressive because it is more thoroughly investigative journalism and provides more ambiguous facts. Barnes does not aim to give the reader an answer as to which side will win but instead takes an independent journalistic stance. In addition, Barnes’s semi-abstract arguments are more interesting than the technical discussion of the confrontation described by Ismay and encourage unbalanced emotion.
Regarding what I have read, such material should not be read in isolation and should only be used for the cited facts. In the context of war propaganda, authors can selectively cite data in such a way as to form a particular opinion in readers. These articles are an example of this. Although Barnes attempts to incorporate critical analysis into his opinion piece, there may still be a sense of foregone future events after reading it. In the face of global geopolitical uncertainty, such beliefs can be destructive and lead to bad decisions, giving a false sense of security. Both works are good opinions by the author, but their reading should be comprehensive and critical.
References
Barnes, J. E. (2022). U.S. sees opportunity for Ukraine to capitalize on Russian weakness. The New York Times. Web.
Fellow, M. K. (2022). Debunking “denazification”. CSCE. Web.
Ismay, J. (2022). The Iranian drones in Ukraine’s already crowded skies. The New York Times. Web.