”Just go forward until you get killed”: how the prisoners of the “Wagnerʼs PMC” fight. The worldʼs leading media about the war on January 31

The New York Times published an extensive article on how "Wagnerʼs PMC" recruits soldiers from among prisoners ― and what happens to those who are lucky enough to survive at the front. The publication describes the meeting of the owner of the "Wagnerites" Evgeny Prigozhin with the prisoners of the correctional facility near St. Petersburg. As a former prisoner himself, Prigozhin managed to pull the right levers in the convictsʼ value system to convince them to go to war. He did not promise money, but forgiveness and a future dignified life. "The convicts are too proud to do anything for money," the sister of one of the recruited convicts, Anastasia, told the newspaper. "My brother left to whiten his name so as not to feel ashamed in front of his mother." Later, Anastasia tried to find out where her brother was. She was told that he was transferred to one of the jails near the Ukrainian border: this is a typical response to such requests. When she asked for an opportunity to talk to him, she was told that "heʼs not available now." The prisoners, whose testimonies the publication managed to obtain, say that after arriving in Luhansk, the previously painted picture of military brotherhood and the noble cause of "helping a brotherly nation" was replaced by an atmosphere of fear. Convicts were killed for refusing to fight, severely beaten for disputes with the leadership, and those who were too principled disappeared. Convicts poorly trained in combat are sent to the hottest areas of the front ― and sometimes the instruction on how to fight is only one: "Just go forward until you are killed." According to the official version, "Wagnerʼs PMC" recruits only those convicted of minor crimes, although the NYT was able to find out through Ukrainian intelligence officers and Russian human rights defenders that those convicted of murders or robberies also go there. Prigozhin personally "released" some of the prisoners from the battlefield, declaring that they had washed away their guilt with blood. Putin was supposed to grant them a pardon ― however, such documents did not appear on the website of the Russian dictator. One way or another, the publication writes, after the end of the six-month "contract" with "Wagnerʼs PMC", hundreds of prisoners who survived the war will have the opportunity to return to Russia. And this becomes another problem for this country, because, first of all, these are people with a penchant for criminal offenses. Secondly, they have a sense of righteousness, since they allegedly "paid back" for the damage caused to society in the war. And thirdly, they are traumatized by the war. As the relatives of Andrey Yastrebov, a 22-year-old Russian convicted of theft who recently returned from the war, told the NYT: “He is as if under hypnosis, a completely different person than he used to be. He doesnʼt show any emotions at all."

"How to get a breakthrough in Ukraine" ― a column under this name was published in Foreign Affairs by political scientist, director of the Institute of International Relations at Stanford University and former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Against the background of the statements of most of Ukraineʼs allies, his theses sound radical: McFaul insists that Ukraine should be provided with as many weapons as possible as soon as possible ― it would be best to announce the transfer of F-16 fighters, ATACMS long-range missiles, and Gray Eagle and MG Reaper drones to Ukraine . The gradual increase in the number and power of weapons transferred to Ukraine gives Russia a chance to reorganize and drag out this war, McFaul claims. Instead, a decisive increase in rates by the West will send a powerful signal to the occupiers that relying on Ukraineʼs victory in this war is futile. First of all, the US needs determination, writes the ambassador. If the war turns into a protracted positional mode, few people will remember the US efforts to build a pro-Ukrainian coalition in 2022, its active military and monetary aid to Ukraine. Biden will not go down in history as someone who helped resolve the conflict. Because "wars remember not the first, but the last year," writes McFaul. And in order for 2023 to be the last year of the war, it is necessary to provide Ukraine with the maximum number of weapons now. Instead, it is possible to obtain an official commitment from the Ukrainian authorities not to use these weapons to impress targets on Russian territory. Escalation on the part of Putin, McFaul believes, there is no need to be afraid. First, the Russian dictator has nothing to increase the degree of escalation, given that he already "uses high-precision missiles to destroy civilian buildings." He cannot use strategic nuclear weapons, because a retaliatory strike will automatically destroy the main cities in Russia. And the use of tactical nuclear weapons will not bring Putin significant successes on the battlefield and will reduce the number of his allies ― including, perhaps, from among the generals of his own army. And Ukraine, which will suffer the most if Russia uses nuclear weapons, is itself asking the world not to be afraid of this and to quickly provide everything necessary to defeat the occupiers. If the war reaches a stalemate, allocate the weapons of its ally that Ukraine needs to resist the Russians will be increasingly difficult: the population of the West will lose faith in Kyivʼs victory. And it will be a loss for the whole world. To prevent this from happening, decisive steps regarding weapons and sanctions must be taken now, the article concludes, and the best thing is on the first anniversary of the war, so that on February 24, 2023, the world will already be solving other, better problems.

Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and the author of several books dedicated to the region, published a column on Bloomberg in which he warns the West against a "reckless plunge" into the Russian-Ukrainian war. Mishraʼs arguments are as follows: despite a year of heavy losses at the front and in the economy, Putin does not seem ready for negotiations. The "Global South" still believes that NATO and the USA are to blame for the war, not Russia. Oversaturated with weapons and money, Ukraine may not be able to stay in the democratic orbit, and the corruption of its leadership may increase. And most importantly, Western intervention in conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa did not have the desired effect: the countries ended up in even greater chaos than before. Mishra also sees a danger in the fact that the states that waged wars of aggression in the last century ― in particular, Germany and Japan ― are now actively arming themselves. The author doesnʼt say what to do next and what way out to look for in the current situation. Instead, he warns that this is how the Russian-Ukrainian war is often perceived outside the collective West.