"Their calculation was to stop our offensive actions in key parts of the Donbas. The result is known… They did not achieve stopping our advance in the Donbas."

So said Vladimir Putin as he "mocked" Ukraine's attempts to turn the tide of the 30-month-old war with a cross-border raid into Russia's Kursk region, said The Times. With Russia advancing towards Ukraine's strategically important city of Pokrovsk, a critical transport and logistics hub in the eastern Donbas region, it appears that Volodymyr Zelenskyy's gamble may not be paying off.

What do the commentators say?
By seizing territory in Kursk, Kyiv hoped it would be able to divert Russian troops away from Pokrovsk, the site of a key railway station and several major roads, said General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine's Armed Forces. However, the reverse had happened. 

"The enemy is trying to divert forces from other sectors, but in the Pokrovsk sector, is doing the opposite and only increasing its forces," Syrskyi said, although President Zelenskyy insisted the Kursk attack had slowed the fighting.

While seizing Russian territory was a political success, said The Times, it now "looks like the wrong kind of distraction when viewed from the Donbas". Losing Pokrovsk would both impact Ukrainian morale on the front line and give Russian troops access to the whole of the region's Donetsk area, "one of the Kremlin’s long-stated aims". 

"Pokrovsk is a very important hub, a centre of defence," military expert Mykhaylo Zhyrokhov told Ukraine's Radio NV. "If we lose Pokrovsk, the entire frontline will collapse."

What next?
The Centre for Defence Strategies, a Ukrainian think tank, has predicted that Russians troops could reach Pokrovsk by mid-September. "For Ukraine, that is not good news," said The Telegraph. Russian forces have already increased their action in areas around the city and are "poised to conquer a significant swathe of Donetsk".    

But Ukrainian action could spread. A build-up of troops has been reported around the Belgorod region of the Russian border and on the northern border of Belarus. But after the "humiliation" of Kursk, said The Economist, Russia will now be watching for any other attack. "There will be no new element of surprise."

If standing and clapping for more than 15 minutes sounds a bit tiring then you might want to steer clear of film festivals, where standing ovations are becoming increasingly epic affairs.

The Venice International Film Festival premiere of Pedro Almodóvar's "The Room Next Door" recently received 17 minutes of applause, a figure widely reported in the show business media, where the "standing-o-meter" is now a staple in some arts publications such as Vulture.

'Communal experience'
The "escalation" of ovations suggests that media coverage of the subject "only encourages longer ovations as the festival wears on", said The Guardian. But "mostly", the length of ovations means "nothing at all regarding a film's long-term prospects".

But the "timing of clapping at festivals" such as Venice and Cannes has still become an "entertainment-news fixture". The length of the ovation after each major premiere gets "its own headline" in trade papers such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. "People be clappin', and reporters be trackin' said clappin'," as Vulture put it.

At this rate, it might not be long until "ice-cream vendors" garner "some form of standing ovation", said Screen Daily. Why are things going this way? "Some point to the effects of the pandemic", and also cite "a deeper, post-Covid appreciation for the communal experience of cinemagoing".

'Ovation-itis'
Just "a few years ago", a theatre audience "getting to its feet was a once-in-a-generation achievement", said Fiona Mountford on the i news site. But now audience members "seem to think it's their duty". "Ovation-itis" has been imported from the US and is "now running riot through our theatres".

Default ovations have their critics across the pond, too. They are "weird and clumsy", said John McWhorter in The New York Times, and also "fake" and "crude". But the trend appears to be "with us to stay".

Performers, at least, might be expected to appreciate more ovations, but Skip Maloney isn't so sure.  If it's "spontaneous and heartfelt", Maloney said on OnStage Blog, an ovation "feeds back to the stage", but if it's "just people standing to be nice, that feedback loop is severed".

First seen 18 years ago, David McVicar's Royal Opera staging of "The Marriage of Figaro" is back for its 11th revival. The show "still gets plenty of laughs", said Richard Morrison in The Times, which is "far from guaranteed" in modern productions of "Mozart's greatest comedy".

The "dense, swiftly moving plot is notoriously difficult to articulate", said George Hall in The Stage, yet McVicar's revival remains "marvellously lucid and sure-footed". Set in a château in 1830 on the eve of France's second revolution, Tanya McCallin's sets and costumes are a "triumph" and provide a "handsome visual context" for the show.

It's a "lively" revival of Figaro, said Nicholas Kenyon in The Telegraph, and McVicar "fills Mozart's score with buzzing action". The artful sets slide "seamlessly" between acts, "atmospherically" lit by Paule Constable.

There are some "superb" performances, said Tim Ashley in The Guardian. Ying Fang makes her debut as a "curiously reflective" Susanna. Although "less immediately spirited" than some of her predecessors, the "silky" tone of her voice is "lovely" to listen to and her rendition of "Deh Vieni Non Tardar" is "exquisite". Figaro, played by Luca Micheletti, is "handsome, warm-voiced and morally aware", while Maria Bengtsson "lays bare the Countess's anguish of soul with understated intensity".

The orchestra was playing "louder than I have heard Mozart played in an opera house", said Richard Morrison in The Times. Thankfully, Jones "turns down the volume" for the Countess and Susanna's "big numbers", both of which are "ravishing".

"The Marriage of Figaro" is at the Royal Opera House, London, until 15 September

Starmer has revealed his weakness over Israel
Tom McTague for UnHerd
"With each decision a political leader takes, we catch a glimpse of the instincts which guide them," writes Tom McTague. Keir Starmer’s decision to revoke arms licences to Israel is "the most revealing moment of his premiership to date". The prime minister "chose to follow the legalistic process", but the risk is that this is a "compromise which does the exact opposite of what it was intended, annoying everyone and assuaging no-one".

Putting life in the hands of a rock’n’roll band
James Marriott in The Times
"Nurturing, among my small handful of deeply held moral convictions, an implacable suspicion of organised fun," writes James Marriott, "I am an instinctive sceptic of what we have been taught to call 'the experience economy'." As people splurge hundreds for tickets to next year's Oasis tour, "I tend to believe the more reliable path to meaning is not spending more money but cultivating long-term human connection".

Too Many Emails? Tame Your Inbox by Thinking Like a Monkey
F.D. Flam for Bloomberg
"If you’re confronting an endless string of unread emails" after a summer break, says F.D. Flam, "try thinking of responding as a game. A status game." Frustration at having too many emails usually happens "because they take more time than we have". But "the real problem is usually that they’re lower-status correspondents asking for more time than we think they deserve".