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”?