How Putin is reshaping Russia to keep his war-machine running - The Economist   

WAR AND sanctions notwithstanding, in early November, the renovated Soviet-era “Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy” re-opened in Moscow. The original, inaugurated in 1939 just weeks before Germany and Russia invaded Poland, papered over the famine and terror of the preceding years. Instead, displays extolled the wonders of Soviet science and the virtues of collectivisation; a special ice-cream hall doled out treats to the masses and a 25-metre statue of Stalin gazed down munificently. Millions died in the dictator’s “great break” with the past, and Russia’s economy and society were completely reshaped, but it was all depicted as unadulterated progress.

It is a similar story with today’s refurbishment, where a futuristic screen-lined tunnel regales visitors with the glories of the past 20 years, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. A pavilion celebrating Russia’s regions features Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhia, four provinces the Russian army is currently attempting to seize from Ukraine. The only hint of the continuing bloodshed is a flower composed of bits of shrapnel. The initiation of the biggest war in Europe since 1945, the re-imposition of a police state within Russia and the categorical reversal of the reforming and Westernising trends of the early post-Soviet period are nowhere to be seen.

It is an especially far cry from the shock and confusion of the early days of the war, when the rouble plunged, hundreds of thousands fled the country and protests rocked Russia’s cities. Mr Putin has since succeeded in stabilising the economy, thanks to the high price of oil, and in squelching dissent, thanks to fierce repression. That has allowed him to retain the allegiance of the elite, who in turn are helping the country adapt. The new equilibrium is unstable, however, with the economy and military recruitment, in particular, threatening further upheaval.

Continued here

Elon Musk’s X is especially vulnerable to an ad boycott - The Economist   

For someone who despises the advertising industry, Elon Musk has a way with viral slogans. At a New York Times event on November 29th the world’s richest man was asked how he felt about firms pulling ads from X, the social network he bought last year when it was known as Twitter. “If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me,” he replied, “go fuck yourself.” The “GFY” approach, as he dubbed it, may come naturally to billionaires. But it is bold for a company that last year made 90% or so of its revenue from ads. Those that have pulled ads from X include Apple and Disney, whose presence Mr Musk previously cited as evidence that X was a safe space for brands.

Advertisers are worried about unsavoury content on the platform. Since Mr Musk fired 80% of X’s staff, including many moderators, more bile seems to be leaking through the filters. Last month Media Matters for America, a watchdog, reported that ads for brands such as IBM had appeared alongside posts praising Adolf Hitler (X disputes this and is suing Media Matters).

Social networks are freer than mainstream media to tell advertisers to get lost. Whereas a typical TV network in America gets most of its ad revenue from fewer than 100 big clients, social networks can have millions of small ones. A year ago the largest, Facebook, was getting 45% of its domestic sales from its 100 biggest advertisers, reckons Sensor Tower, a research firm; a boycott against it in 2020 by more than 600 firms, including giants like Unilever and Starbucks, had little effect on sales. But X lacks Facebook’s sophisticated ad-targeting apparatus, and relies on campaigns by big brands. In October 2022, when Mr Musk bought Twitter, its 100 top clients accounted for 70% of American ad sales.

Continued here

Who are the Palestinians in Israel’s prisons? - The Economist   

If George Santos is booted out, he will join a select group

As caseloads rise in rich countries, governments are tempted to ship claimants abroad

Hamas hopes to swap more for Israeli hostages

Continued here

Israel and Palestine: How peace is possible - The Economist   

IF YOU WANT to understand how desperately Israelis and Palestinians need peace, consider what would become of them in a state of perpetual war. Against a vastly superior Israeli army, the Palestinians’ most powerful weapon would remain the death and suffering of their own people. Israel’s fate would be woeful, too, if it wants to be a flourishing, modern democracy. If Israel permanently relies on its army to subjugate the Palestinians, it would become an apartheid-enforcing pariah. Israelis carrying out daily acts of oppression punctuated by rounds of killing would themselves be corrupted. For two peoples locked in a violent embrace, peace is the only deliverance.

But how to get there? Israelis are still reeling from the rape and murder of October 7th; Palestinians are watching the mangled bodies of women and children pile up in Gaza. Amid the carnage, outsiders’ urging of peace seems naive. Besides, jaded Palestinians and Israelis see endless talks as a mechanism for delaying peace, not forging it. Negotiators in the past have thrashed out almost every imaginable permutation of land swaps and security arrangements. All failed.

And yet something changed after October 7th. Israel’s strategy of marginalising the Palestinians and their dreams is broken. Both sides have a chance to find new leaders with a new vision. And after years of neglect, outsiders may be ready to help, crucially including a group of Arab countries. They must not fall into the trap of thinking that peace requires sweating the detail yet again. Success depends on the two sides wanting peace and—much harder—believing in it.

Continued here