In using a subheading “Rising star Dvornikov tasked to repeat Syria success in south-eastern assault” on the story about Alexander Dvornikov, Russia’s new commander, surely your editors were on autopilot, under the sway of some malign robotic influence?

For no one but a monster or the lackey of a tyrant could present anything to do with the ongoing Syrian civil war as a “success”. In the article there is talk of military superiority, an objective measure. But where did this use of “success” come from?

Henry Wessells
Upper Montclair, NJ, US