When Ukraine launched its Aug. 6 military thrust into the bordering Kursk region of Russia, it blindsided Moscow. And Russian authorities are scrambling to regain control over both the military situation on the ground, which is still ongoing, and the official war narrative.

Though the war has been an unavoidable fact for some Russians for more than two years, the Kursk incursion has brought it home to many more in an immediate and deeply distressing way. Ukrainian troops occupied dozens of villages and forced the evacuation of almost 200,000 people from the southwestern region.

Russian media have graphically covered the scenes of chaos and panic in Kursk, where war is suddenly engulfing recognizably Russian spaces. The reports convey at least some of the fear and despair of local people hustled onto buses, forced to leave behind their homes, belongings, even pets – as well as vistas of violence and destruction. 

That may have been part of the Ukrainian calculation in launching the attack, which by most accounts is an expensive operation that offers little discernible strategic advantage.

President Vladimir Putin suggested other motives at a meeting of the Kremlin’s Security Council this week. They included an effort to acquire Russian territory for use as a bargaining chip in upcoming negotiations, a hope that Russian forces will be diverted from the main battle fronts inside Ukraine, and an attempt to “create discord and division ... to disrupt the domestic political landscape.”

Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser, says the Ukrainians also likely sought to embarrass Mr. Putin personally. “In that case they did succeed,” he says. “Putin may be offended, but he’s not going to overreact.”

A jaded Russian public

It’s hard to say how effective the Ukrainian gambit, as an attempt to shake Russian morale, may prove to be. Denis Volkov, head of the Levada Center, Russia’s only independent polling agency, says it’ll be a couple of weeks before any hard data on Russian public responses is available. But he recalls that previous Russian setbacks, such as 2022 military losses in the Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson regions, barely moved the needle of public opinion.

“I would guess that the majority will take the Kursk situation as a local, borderline affair,” he says. Russia is an enormous country by territory, and most people “go on living their own lives. The economy is better than ever, it’s summer vacation time, ... and there is a generally accepted point of view that ‘Why should one bother about something that you cannot change?’”

Anatoliy Zhdanov/Kommersant Photo/Reuters

A man stands next to burnt-out remains of cars in the courtyard of a residential building, which local authorities say was hit by debris from a destroyed Ukrainian missile, amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict in Kursk, Aug. 11, 2024.

Sergei Davidis, a lawyer for the now-banned human rights organization Memorial, says the appropriate reaction of people should be outrage, because “it demonstrates the vulnerability of the Russian people and state. ... It shows the weakness of a state and army that are not capable of protecting their own territory and people.”

But even Mr. Davidis, like many other Russian analysts, agrees that it’s more likely that many “will support the war even more now that their own territory [is occupied], and think that must be reversed.”

“Having to choose between victory in an unjust war and defeat, with all the negative consequences for themselves, people will choose victory,” says Mr. Davidis, who now lives in exile.

As for the purported goal of diverting Russian forces from the main battle front in the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv regions, Mr. Markov says there has been some reallocation of resources, particularly the crack Chechen Akhmat special forces, to help stem Ukrainian advances in Kursk. But daily news reports suggest Russian troops are continuing their slow, grinding momentum along the main fronts without any visible changes so far.

Karen Norris/Staff

Terrorism or war?

Russian propaganda has labeled Ukraine’s incursion as a “terrorist” attack, a claim that seems unlikely to get much traction even among Russians, despite the reported civilian devastation.

One practical reason for using the “terrorist” accusation, some analysts suggest, is to forestall any appeals for a massive reallocation of forces from Ukrainian battlegrounds to defend Russia’s own territory. For the most part, at least so far, the Russian forces being deployed to Kursk appear to be the national security units from the Federal Security Service, the National Guard, and others who would normally be sent to deal with a local event.

“Now Russia is collecting forces from inside the country, and there is no question of withdrawing significant forces from the front,” says Sergei Strokan, a columnist with the Moscow daily newspaper Kommersant. “And it does feel like a terrorist attack, as if people in Kursk are being held hostage in a hijacked airplane, or something. And if we say that Russia has been subjected to a state terror attack, it stiffens resolve. There is no option but to press forward and dismantle this terrorist state.”

Not everyone agrees with the “terrorist” narrative. “It’s a mistake of some Russian authorities to call it a terrorist attack,” says Mr. Markov. “It’s just normal war.”

Mr. Putin, who earlier declared that Russia intends to keep the four Ukrainian regions that it has “annexed” along with Crimea, also appeared to rule out any bargaining over territory in any future peace talks.

“What kind of negotiations can we have with those who indiscriminately attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, or pose threats to nuclear power facilities? What is there to discuss with such parties?” he said. Mr. Putin’s argument is almost point-for-point identical to that which Ukraine makes against negotiating with the Kremlin over territory.

The Ukrainian assault on Kursk is sure to embolden Russian hawks, who have argued from the beginning that the Kremlin is not prosecuting the war to the fullest extent, says Mr. Strokan.

“The longer this goes on, the more questions will be raised about how this was allowed to happen,” he says. “Russia was taken by surprise. It plays into the hands of those who have been calling for total war: taking off the gloves and making sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.”

In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech to a conservative think tank on “woke capital” – and accused Amazon of funding Black Lives Matter in order to burn down the competition.

“Who benefits most when small businesses on Main Street are destroyed? Who wants to see their competitors unable to deliver goods and services to people, so that you get it delivered in your brown Amazon box? Jeff Bezos,” Mr. Vance said, referencing the riots that broke out in the summer of 2020, amid a wave of racial justice protests. “The people who are invested in destroying America via our corporate class are also getting rich from it. This is an important piece of the puzzle to understand.”

Mr. Vance has described big business as an enemy of conservative values, accusing many corporations of directly undermining America. It’s a view that has gained traction on the MAGA right in recent years, with conservatives attacking companies like Disney and Budweiser for “woke” messaging and efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) – evidence of the Republican Party’s transformation in the Trump era.

But Mr. Vance doesn’t just think companies are cynically pandering to the marketplace. He’s taken his criticisms a step further, painting corporations’ motivations in a sinister, conspiratorial light. 

“If you peel back the onion, what you find is that the businesses that are most connected and most devoted to destroying our values are also benefiting financially from it,” he argued in the speech at a conference in suburban Washington, D.C., hosted by the Claremont Institute, a right-wing California think tank that has emerged as an ally of the MAGA movement.

Since he became a senator last year, Mr. Vance has broken with his party to push a number of populist economic proposals. But it’s his pugnacious rhetoric that has drawn significant public attention since former President Donald Trump selected him as his running mate. 

Vance, an abortion ban, and “cheap labor” 

In the same 2021 speech, Mr. Vance argued that companies supporting abortion rights really just want a pool of “cheap labor,” with workers unburdened by the cost and time commitment of caring for children. Citing former Georgia Democratic House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams’ assertion that a Georgia abortion ban would be “bad for business,” he said: “She was right. When the big corporations come against you for passing abortion restrictions, when corporations are so desperate for cheap labor that they don’t want people to parent children, she’s right to say that abortion restrictions are bad for business.”

Ms. Abrams had lamented in a 2019 Twitter thread that more business leaders weren’t speaking up against a bill prohibiting most abortions in Georgia. She says in a statement to the Monitor that his comments misrepresented her earlier remarks, while saying he and Mr. Trump “expressed contempt for women’s healthcare.”

“A woman’s access to abortion directly affects her ability to secure an education, find a job and advance and make decisions about how and when to grow a family,” she says in an email. “Companies cannot effectively attract and retain talent when half of the available workforce is denied basic human rights to care and self-determination.”

At a Thursday press availability after this story published, Mr. Vance was asked if he stood by his comments on abortion and companies — and what evidence he had to back it up. He said the evidence he had was "what people actually say," before pivoting to a broader critique of how companies treat young families, citing his own family's experience in the corporate world.

“Very often, corporate America is not especially friendly to parents with young children, and especially moms with young children. And I think we have to promote a culture of pro-family thinking and pro-family policy in this country where we see children as blessings and as resources and not as curses, which is how I think way too many companies and frankly way too many of our leaders in Washington think about our young children," he said.

An unsupported allegation about Amazon 

Thomas Frank, a left-leaning historian and author who has written extensively on American populism, says that Mr. Vance identified a phenomenon that has been going on for years – but took it to an extreme and unsupported conclusion. 

“This combination of liberalism and capitalism, this does exist, and it’s real,” says Mr. Frank. But instead of just accusing companies of virtue signaling, Mr. Vance makes a giant leap in framing their rhetoric and actions as part of a sinister plot. Jeff Bezos wanting Main Street to burn? “That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I would love to see his evidence for that.”

In July 2020, Amazon pledged $10 million in donations to a dozen social justice organizations, part of a wave of corporations signaling to consumers and their own employees that they shared their values. The company later offered a corporate match that led to $17 million more. Black Lives Matter’s national and local chapters received more than $2 million from Amazon and another $1 million from employee contributions. 

The Trump-Vance campaign did not provide any evidence supporting Mr. Vance’s claim that the organizations Amazon donated to had supported the riots that sporadically broke out alongside the widespread, largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.

Recently, Senator Vance has returned to the riots that broke out that summer, claiming that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, “actively encouraged the rioters” who caused widespread damage in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s murder. Mr. Walz called out the National Guard to restore order, but has faced criticism for not doing it sooner.

Mr. Vance achieved fame with a best-selling 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” that was at times critical of the people he’d grown up around in rural Ohio. His political rise was also fueled by patronage from his former boss, Paypal founder and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who spent $15 million to help elect him to the Senate.

Populist record contrasts with Trump

Mr. Vance’s anti-corporate populism isn’t just rhetorical. As a senator, he’s supported raising the federal minimum wage. After a disastrous train derailment spilled chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio, he teamed up with Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown on a bill to tighten train regulations, over protests from other Republicans. And he’s worked with Democrats on legislation to claw back compensation for executives of failed banks and to rein in credit card fees.

Mr. Trump broke with big business conservatives on immigration and trade, two major issues where Mr. Vance agrees with him. But at other times the former president’s  populist rhetoric clashed with more business-friendly policies, like massive corporate tax cuts and major deregulation efforts. Mr. Trump has also flip-flopped to embrace companies he once criticized, like TikTok and Tesla, after their major investors promised to back him.

Mr. Vance appears to be more of a pure economic populist. But it’s his aggressive, acerbic rhetoric, rather than his policy views, that have drawn the most attention since Mr. Trump selected him as his running mate. 

Mr. Vance’s comments in recent years calling leading Democrats “childless cat ladies,” arguing that people with children should get more votes in elections, and saying that pregnancies caused by rape and incest were “inconvenient” have resurfaced since he joined the ticket – and immediately hurt his image with voters.

Vance’s challenge in poll ratings

Democrats have taken to mocking Mr. Vance as “weird,” and it seems to be working: Polls have shown his favorability ratings are now upside down, making him less popular than Mr. Trump, as well as Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate. A recent survey from a Democratic pollster showed that reactions to his rhetoric are driving those numbers: “Anti-woman” and “weird” were two of voters’ leading descriptions for Mr. Vance, with the number describing him as “extreme” jumping from 20% in late July to 33% in August.

Mr. Vance has sought to downplay some of his previous comments. He insisted in a Sunday ABC News interview that his suggestion that parents should have extra voting rights was just a “thought experiment” and not a policy proposal he actually supported.

But when asked for comment about his 2021 remarks to the Claremont Institute on abortion and Black Lives Matter, a spokesman for Mr. Vance doubled down.

“Jeff Bezos’s companies promoted and donated to Black Lives Matter as BLM protestors destroyed countless brick and mortar businesses across the country – the very businesses that Amazon counts as direct competitors,” Vance spokesman William Martin says in an emailed statement. “Woke billionaires like Bezos have taken over corporations across the country and turned them against the American people. Senator Vance is absolutely right to call them out and will continue to do so.”

This story was updated in the afternoon on Aug. 15 to include Mr. Vance's response to a question about the abortion comments that the Monitor published earlier in the day.

More 2024 election coverage

As Harris picks Walz, George Floyd riots resurface as election issue

Republican attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, bring questions of law, order, and the George Floyd protests to the campaign forefront.

Six issues Kamala Harris is campaigning on – and 5 she’d rather avoid

Kamala Harris has the opportunity to rebrand herself in the eyes of voters. Her focus will include protecting abortion rights – and drawing a contrast with Donald Trump on justice.

In Pennsylvania, ordinary citizens combat political violence

Before the attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life, there had been rising incidents of harassment and threats of violence against public officials. Here’s how some people are working to dampen the risks.

Joe Biden’s legacy rests with Kamala Harris. Can he help her win?

From now to Election Day, a sensitive issue for the Harris campaign and the White House is, Where and when should Joe Biden be seen? It matters not just for the election, but also for his own legacy.

Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters

A Ukrainian service worker repairs a military vehicle, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, near the Russian border in Sumy region, Ukraine, Aug. 11, 2024.

Nine hundred days after launching his unprovoked war to swallow up neighboring Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has received a rude awakening: a surprise cross-border attack by Ukrainian forces, which quickly seized control of some 400 square miles inside southern Russia.

Yet Mr. Putin wasn’t the only one caught off guard.

So were U.S. President Joe Biden and Kyiv’s main European NATO allies.

They now face a potentially critical choice, which they have been deliberately dodging since the Russian invasion: Should they give Ukraine the tools it would need not merely to survive Russia’s onslaught, but to turn the tide of the war against the Kremlin?

So far, they have not fully put their weapons where their words are. That is because of an overriding concern, especially in Washington, that a cornered Mr. Putin might dramatically escalate, threatening other neighbors and bringing NATO directly into the fray.

That concern remains.

But recent changes in the direction of the war have brought a new urgency to the question of how far to beef up support for Kyiv’s forces.

The immediate issue is not new weapons deliveries, even though Ukraine has been frustrated with the on-and-off pace of providing advanced missiles, F-16 fighter jets, and air defense systems.

It is whether to loosen allied restrictions on the Ukrainians’ use of equipment they have already received, especially long-range British and U.S. missiles capable of hitting supply routes, arms depots, and troops far behind the Russian front lines.

AP

Residents of an apartment building damaged after shelling by Ukrainian forces stand near their building in Kursk, Russia, Aug. 11, 2024.

They could be particularly effective now if they were deployed from the areas the Ukrainians have captured inside Russia – potentially destroying the bases from which the Russians have been launching missile, drone, and glide bomb attacks on villages, towns, and cities across Ukraine.

Allied hopes of a major spring offensive this year against Russian troops occupying one-fifth of Ukrainian territory foundered, largely because of dense Russian minefields along the nearly 600-mile battlefront.

In recent months, Russia has sent in tens of thousands more troops. Amid relentless air attacks, they have managed to wear down Ukrainian defenses and slowly but surely push forward.

Neither side has seemed likely to achieve a major breakthrough. But the advantage was increasingly, unmistakably, with the Russians.

Mr. Biden hopes that the Ukrainians’ surprise attack on Russia’s Kursk region will have swung the momentum in their favor, at least for now. “It’s creating a real dilemma for Putin,” he told reporters this week.

U.S. and European defense officials have noted the assault’s use of what Western planners call “combined force” warfare – the seamless integration of air defenses, electronic warfare, armor, and ground troops that they had hoped would bring success in the spring offensive.

The attack also appears to have relied on a gradual easing of at least one of the restrictions that the allies had placed on the use of their military aid. The Ukrainian incursion force has been using American and German armored vehicles outside Ukrainian borders, with no sign that Washington or Berlin has raised objections.

Still, there has not yet been similar flexibility on using the weapons that Ukraine insists could most dramatically alter the balance: Britain’s Storm Shadow missiles, with a range of some 150 miles, and even more powerful American ATACM missiles. London and Washington are still forbidding their use against targets inside Russia.

In announcing further Ukrainian advances this week, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized the potential importance of removing that constraint. “There are things you cannot do with drones alone,” he said. “For that, another weapon is needed: a missile.”

Not even the most optimistic of Ukraine’s supporters are suggesting there is any near-term prospect of being able to force Mr. Putin out of Ukraine.

The hope, instead, is to make him peel troops away from their positions in Ukraine to deal with the first foreign military advance onto Russian soil since World War II.

For the United States and its allies, two considerations will now likely determine whether they green-light the use of their missiles.

The first is the familiar concern not to push Mr. Putin too far.

That may weigh less heavily now. The Ukrainian attack is the most spectacular breach yet of Russian “red lines,” which the Kremlin has periodically hinted could prompt it to escalate, possibly to use of a tactical nuclear weapon. So far, Russia has not acted on such threats.

The other consideration goes beyond immediate battlefield implications, focusing on the diplomatic endgame that all the combatants, even the Ukrainians, seem increasingly to accept must come at some point.

By demonstrating their ability to seize Russian territory, the Ukrainians will have strengthened their hand in any such bargaining, even if Mr. Putin’s forces drive the Ukrainians back.

Kyiv’s allies could strengthen Ukraine’s position even further by allowing the use of long-range missiles against Crimea, which Mr. Putin seized and unilaterally annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Whether Washington will indeed change course is likely to become clear only in the weeks ahead. For now, President Biden is keeping his cards close to his chest.

“We’ve been in direct contact, constant contact, with the Ukrainians,” he told reporters this week. “That’s all I’m going to say about it while it’s active.”

Hillary Chura

Andrew Wells says it took him a whole summer to find an affordable apartment in New York.

Once a manufacturing powerhouse with a vibrant working class, New York City has become unaffordable for middle-class nurses, teachers, and firefighters who keep it running.

Four decades of insufficient construction have driven housing costs to double the national average and shaved the rental vacancy rate to 1.4%, a quarter of the norm across the country.

To address the urgent needs, Mayor Eric Adams is focusing especially on one big idea: relaxing stringent zoning rules to welcome more types of apartments – and not just in traditionally targeted areas. “A little more housing in every neighborhood” is his catchphrase for the goal.

The ambitious effort has the potential to dramatically change the city’s neighborhoods, living conditions, and economic landscape – even as skeptics wonder if the targets are achievable.

With full-scale rezoning still on the drawing board, Mayor Adams and the city have been moving ahead with significant companion steps.  

Today, for example, the New York City Council unanimously approved a proposal to bring 7,000 new housing units – about a quarter of which will be designated as affordable – to the East Bronx over the next decade or so.

“If working-class people can’t afford to stay here, the city can’t function,” says Olivia Leirer, co-director of New York Communities for Change, an advocate for affordable housing. Housing experts say the city needs 20% more homes – another three-quarters of a million on top of the current 3.7 million units.

“A little more housing in every neighborhood’’

Mayor Adams’ plan involves creating districts with 20% more units – provided the additions remain affordable. Proposals include encouraging homeowners and faith-based organizations to build new units where feasible on their own unused land, allowing more apartments over shops, and ending mandated parking spaces in new complexes, which developers say are prohibitively expensive. 

Peter K. Afriyie/AP/File

New York Mayor Eric Adams proposes relaxing stringent half-century-old zoning rules in a move that could dramatically change the city’s neighborhoods.

The mayor aims to re-popularize single-room occupancies, or SROs, a 20th-century housing staple offering private bedrooms with shared spaces. One-third of New Yorkers live alone.

Another push is converting empty post-pandemic office buildings into housing. About 20% of the towers sit vacant. The city’s new Office Conversion Accelerator said in an email that many buildings have inquired about conversions, and 10 have active permits that could supply 4,000 homes over the next decade. Relatively few of the city’s office buildings can or will be converted, the email said.

Conversions are costly, yet some units would be affordable thanks to new city tax incentives that state lawmakers passed this spring, along with some other rezoning requests made by Mayor Adams.

Albany also renewed tax breaks for developers creating affordable units. The cuts replace a rebate that lapsed in 2022 and choked residential construction by 76%, according to New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

Eric Kober, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a retired city planner, says simpler provisions would have been more effective, but tax breaks are better than nothing: “Private developers are the people who produce these units, and you have to make it profitable for them.”

How zoning affects housing costs

Most elected officials, residents, city planners, and other experts agree restrictive zoning increases construction costs, pushes rents higher, and inhibits local economic growth. More money spent on rent means less for clothing, food, and entertainment. 

Brian Cain of the city’s Independent Budget Office says whether the City Council will pass the mayor’s initiatives this fall remains uncertain. Community promoters say rezoning destroys neighborhoods; tenant activists accuse them of NIMBYism.

Previous administrations have rezoned select areas, but Mayor Adams' administration would be the first since 1961 to achieve citywide repurposing. Mayor Adams aims for 100,000 more housing units over the next decade, with a “moonshot” goal of 500,000 by 2032. Some units would be reserved for low-income renters. Matthew Murphy, the Furman Center’s executive director, says the mayor’s moonshot goal is unrealistic – and the 100,000 falls short of what’s necessary, given expected demand.

The city planning department estimates 108,850 units are possible by 2039 – fewer than the already insufficient 25,000 annual average production of late.

In April, the mayor’s office announced the city is ahead of schedule toward its goal of creating or preserving 12,000 affordable apartments this year. Based on figures from the New York Housing Conference and the city, about half of new units created in 2023 were affordable.

Baaba Halm, vice president of New York’s Enterprise Community Partners, a national nonprofit dedicated to affordable housing, says the city is a leader on this issue but has far to go.

Nationally, rent for median-income households is $1,300, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. In New York City, records show last year’s local median asking rent at $3,000. For this to be considered affordable, a family must earn $120,000 – almost twice the $70,000 median household income for city renters. 

“Newcomers can’t afford to come, and old-timers are finding it hard to stay,” says Manhattan’s borough historian, Robert Snyder.

Owning versus renting

Owning a unit can cost less each month than renting, but stiff down payments make ownership impossible for most, says Nishant Sondhi, a real estate agent and fund manager who raises money for developments in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

The woodsy northern Manhattan enclave of Inwood was rezoned in 2018 despite community protests. A working-class neighborhood home to five- and six-story apartment buildings and independent businesses, it will add several mixed-use, blocklong complexes. They range from 12 to more than 20 stories and will create 1,600 new affordable apartments and preserve 2,500 others, including The Eliza, an affordable, mixed-use housing-school-library complex that opened in June. More than 80,000 people applied for The Eliza’s 174 apartments via a lottery.

Ann Toran’s family has lived in Inwood since 1999. She worries about local car washes, grocers, restaurants, and longtime neighbors being priced out: “I don’t know where all these people are going to go.”

Andrew Wells, a high school science teacher who lives in Brooklyn, considered moving back to Texas after taking a second job coaching track to make rent.

“It doesn’t seem like a smart thing for a city to make essential jobs like teachers so hard to break into for a young single person,” says Mr. Wells, who has since gotten a raise and found a cheaper apartment – a fraught process that he says lasted all last summer.

Reuters

A smartphone with a displayed YouTube logo is placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration.

On Aug. 6, Ukraine’s military became the first foreign army to invade Russia since World War II. While the results of this audacious incursion remain uncertain, it may someday be seen as one of history’s greatest campaigns for a people’s freedom. Oddly enough, many Russians in recent days began their own counteraction for freedom, with possibly a similar effect on ending a war now in its third year.

They have been in open revolt against a government move to shut down one of their few windows to the free world: YouTube.

Since mid-July, Russians have reported major outages of the video streaming service on their home computers. “Russians haven’t taken calmly to this,” reports Meduza, an independent news site run by Russians in nearby Latvia. In big cities, people filed applications – all denied – for street protests. More than 1 million people signed an appeal to reverse the outages.

Even top officials close to the Kremlin complained – about the potential loss of jobs as well as the loss of education videos and entertainment shows, especially for children. An estimated two-thirds of Russians have relied on YouTube for its services.

While most other foreign social media have been banned or restricted since the war began, President Vladimir Putin had been allowing access to YouTube. Partly this was because of its popularity. But in addition, the government has used the site to spread pro-war videos.

Yet as cyber statecraft expert Justin Sherman told Time, “If you start losing the ability to spread misinformation and propaganda, but people can still use it to spread truth and organize, then all of a sudden, you start wondering why you’re allowing that platform in your country in the first place.”

It seems many Russians worry far less about the Ukraine counteroffensive and more about the loss of access to the truth about the war along with many other benefits available on YouTube.

“Live not by lies,” advised Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one of Russia’s most famous dissidents, a half-century ago. Similar advice from other truth-seeking dissidents helped fell the Soviet Union in 1991. Perhaps the current demand by Russians for the truth easily found on YouTube and similar sites may end Mr. Putin’s war on Ukraine.