Ukraine

[Serial_Apologist]

The day before Russia invaded Ukraine, Carlson was fervently arguing Putin's cause on Fox. he declared that Ukraine was not a democracy, and expressed his support for Putin and his worldview, saying:

“Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?”

Carlson's not the only person on the extreme right who supports Putin. Steve Bannon has praised Putin for being "anti-woke", and for his hostility towards gay and trans rights. Supporters at Trump rallies have also in the past worn tee-shirts with the slogan, "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat". Trump himself described Putin's excuses for sending a 'peace force' into Eastern Ukraine as "genius", and said "Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.” He went on to say the Putin had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area.

While Fox commentators have had to modify their cheerleading for Putin since the invasion began, they have still been keen to place the blame for the war in Ukraine on Biden rather than Putin.

The extreme right here are also inveterate Putin admirers. Both Aaron Banks and Nigel Farage have expressed their admiration for Putin as a strong leader, supported his claims over Eastern Ukraine, and have pushed the Kremlin's line that Putin is simply responding to aggressive NATO expansion, and has legitimate claims in Ukraine.

For the resurgent extreme nationalist right, in whichever country it has shown its hands over the past decade or so, the last remaining "enemy" to be defeated in the post-Cold War world, have been the socially liberal value systems which have accompanied the growth and spread of global, consumer-orientated capitalism. The right had two choices - either to go along with the new value systems of capitalist internationalism or bunker back down into a mythologised past where people "knew their place". There was a hankering for a return to the entrepid 17th century, when brave white men went out bringing civilisation to heathen peoples with gun in one hand and bible in the other and returned to shape a mythological narrative into the ideological thought formation of the emerging working classes that would tie them to their God-given masters and gratefully doff hats to catch crumbs from the rich man's table. The crucial moment they had been waiting for really came with the banking crisis of 2007/8, when the nation state - once but until that moment seemingly no more the solid grounding and launch pad for political domination, commercial venture and exploitation - once again came into its own as the salvation of the rich and powerful.

Where, since we still have to spell it out, the left and right differ is in either seeing the state as existing to preserve the existing social and political order or as transitional between a capitalism constantly forced between the options of transcending state boundaries in the interest of multinational conglomerate hegemony and having to fall back on it when resulting contradictions threaten total collapse, on the one hand, and for the left, building a world in which the actually creators of wealth get together across artificial boundaries, including national ones, to work out a sustainable future in common for all.

[Joseph K]

For the resurgent extreme nationalist right, in whichever country it has shown its hands over the past decade or so, the last remaining "enemy" to be defeated in the post-Cold War world, have been the socially liberal value systems which have accompanied the growth and spread of global, consumer-orientated capitalism. The right had two choices - either to go along with the new value systems of capitalist internationalism or bunker back down into a mythologised past where people "knew their place". There was a hankering for a return to the entrepid 17th century, when brave white men went out bringing civilisation to heathen peoples with gun in one hand and bible in the other and returned to shape a mythological narrative into the ideological thought formation of the emerging working classes that would tie them to their God-given masters and gratefully doff hats to catch crumbs from the rich man's table. The crucial moment they had been waiting for really came with the banking crisis of 2007/8, when the nation state - once but until that moment seemingly no more the solid grounding and launch pad for political domination, commercial venture and exploitation - once again came into its own as the salvation of the rich and powerful.

Where, since we still have to spell it out, the left and right differ is in either seeing the state as existing to preserve the existing social and political order or as transitional between a capitalism constantly forced between the options of transcending state boundaries in the interest of multinational conglomerate hegemony and having to fall back on it when resulting contradictions threaten total collapse, on the one hand, and for the left, building a world in which the actually creators of wealth get together across artificial boundaries, including national ones, to work out a sustainable future in common for all.

Well put.

It's possible to say Putin is responding to NATO expansion without in anyway condoning him. Explanation does not equal support.

[Serial_Apologist]

Let's clarify: I don't suggest that there is any resultant complicity, or "shaking hands" between those on the right and left, or that the two merge or deliberately find common cause against the rest. That isn't the problem. It's simply that the right - Trump on the political front, Carlson in the media, for instance, and their numerous hangers-on - are favouring the pro-Russian stance . They have a completely different motivation from the left which is pressing the anti-West case. What I have against that stance is that it is one-sided. Reading the article Richard linked to seemed a case in point. Assertions and denials which were largely unsupported and which, it seemed to me, was - if you like - opportunist argument to hit at the traditional targets (which in other circumstances I would take as just criticism). But it becomes a two-pronged attack on anyone who tries to present a balanced view.

I think what it is is that analysts on both sides - pro-NATO or pro-Russia (regardless of Putin) to various degrees - are trying to re-figure out what has to be factored in to work out what led to the present situation, and the media commentariat are putting across a simplified version for mass consumption. In a world more governed by movements on stock markets than whether we can go on consuming the way we are, and people have been led to look the other way, no one has thought about empire-building in the old 19th century meaning of the term because it had become an irrelevancy in a world governed no longer it seemed by nation states and parliaments with powers but by the fortunes and manoeuvrings of the biggest and most dominant businesses. In ditching Keynsian demand-management methods after 1979, until the banking collapse the only levers national governments seemed to have at their disposal was interest rate adjustments: they'd somehow "overlooked" how decoupled money supply had become from "real economy".

[HighlandDougie]

Well put.

It's possible to say Putin is responding to NATO expansion without in anyway condoning him. Explanation does not equal support.

Ah well, nothing like a piece of sophistry as a justification ....

[french frank]

I think what it is is that analysts on both sides - pro-NATO or pro-Russia (regardless of Putin) to various degrees - are trying to re-figure out what has to be factored in to work out what led to the present situation, and the media commentariat are putting across a simplified version for mass consumption.

Yep, but how far do you want to go back? Why are there large Russian populations in Donetsk and Luhansk in the first place? Stalin's seizure of peasant farms to form collectives, the grain failure and then the punitive treatment of the Ukrainians caused mass deaths and emigration. That was followed by the deliberate policy of 'repopulation'/resettlement of Ukraine by Russians in the 1930s.

Ukrainian alleged mistreatment of the Russian population has been the excuse for Putin to step in to support the Russians in Donbas. I don't think it's particularly helpful to single out the West/NATO or any particular country and remain silent over Russia simply to focus on a perennial political target to blame. I can't say that I'm pro-NATO or pro-Russia. Taking sides in this seems futile.

PS Logging off now to concentrate on Owen Jones.

[teamsaint]

Ah well, nothing like a piece of sophistry as a justification ....

I’m quite sure that an explanation doesn’t necessarily have to be seen , in any way whatsoever, as a justification.
Trying to understand how we ( all countries) got to this point has to be a part of the solution.

I don’t pretend to understand every nuance of the geopolitics here, but a reflection on what happened with the collapse of the Soviet empire , and the disintegration of the huge double ring of buffers that “ protected” Russia,( and what the world looks like from Moscow) and a contemplation of the dynamics of Cuban missile crisis and the american sphere of influence are surely central to even the beginnings of an understanding ?

On a somewhat , but not completely unrelated point, I have still to read anything like a worthwhile piece from anybody trying to understand what Putin’s ideal endgame is here. Is it possible that he might offer terms to Nato before Ukraine is utterly smashed, to obtain guarantees on Nato expansion ? An interminable occupation doesn’t look very palatable when linked to a disastrous collapse in the Russian economy .

[Serial_Apologist]

I’m quite sure that an explanation doesn’t necessarily have to be seen , in any way whatsoever, as a justification.
Trying to understand how we ( all countries) got to this point has to be a part of the solution.

I don’t pretend to understand every nuance of the geopolitics here, but a reflection on what happened with the collapse of the Soviet empire , and the disintegration of the huge double ring of buffers that “ protected” Russia,( and what the world looks like from Moscow) and a contemplation of the dynamics of Cuban missile crisis and the american sphere of influence are surely central to even the beginnings of an understanding ?

On a somewhat , but not completely unrelated point, I have still to read anything like a worthwhile piece from anybody trying to understand what Putin’s ideal endgame is here. Is it possible that he might offer terms to Nato before Ukraine is utterly smashed, to obtain guarantees on Nato expansion ? An interminable occupation doesn’t look very palatable when linked to a disastrous collapse in the Russian economy .

Also, if Putin's vision is intending for Ukraine to become once again part of the Russian federation, smashing the place to smithereens seems rather a strange starting point.

[oddoneout]

Also, if Putin's vision is intending for Ukraine to become once again part of the Russian federation, smashing the place to smithereens seems rather a strange starting point.

Rebuilding it all would keep the population out of mischief? I have to say it was something I was wondering about. It's all beginning to seem a bit random and chaotic to me, which doesn't bode well for trying to reach a resolution.

[richardfinegold]

All of this angst about what did we do in the West to “cause” this catastrophe is misplaced. The heck with ignoring Russian sensibilities, worries of scaring them with Big Bad NATO, etcetera. Putin was going to do this no matter what anyone did or said. He views himself messianically, as a Great Man of Russia that will restore former conquests. I have heard that he is really bothered by the fact that most Ukrainians under the age of 40 have never lived under Russian rule, and I suspect that Putin, the Covidphobe and no doubt fearful of being assasinated, feels he must accomplish this mission during his dwindling window of his lifetime

[Bryn]

. . . Here is something interesting: https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.co...c8fX_wF0ptfVTU

Would that be the Australian astrologer turned conspiracy theorist? Difficult to find much about her, other than what she says about herself. I found the piece you linked to, to be highly speculative and questionable in its sources. She does seem to have quite a following on the American alt-right. Remind me, was it Ukraine that invaded Russia or the other way round.

[LHC]

Moving away from the blame game momentarily, this article by Professor Lawrence Freedman on quite how badly the war is going for Russia is interesting.

https://samf.substack.com/p/space-and-time?s=r

[Bryn]

Moving away from the blame game momentarily, this article by Professor Lawrence Freedman on quite how badly the war is going for Russia is interesting.

https://samf.substack.com/p/space-and-time?s=r

Now that was indeed an interesting read, and from someone very well versed in their subject, rather than a narcissistic astrologer turned conspiracy theorist.

[RichardB]

Would that be the Australian astrologer turned conspiracy theorist? Difficult to find much about her, other than what she says about herself.

I have no idea who she is or where she has a following. What I found interesting and thought-provoking was the idea that the "best" outcome from NATO's standpoint indeed might involve drawing Russia into an expensive and draining quagmire, with Ukraine and its population as a disposable element of that "game". Yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, Dominic Raab started putting out the message that the situation in Ukraine is likely to last some considerable time.

[Petrushka]

Moving away from the blame game momentarily, this article by Professor Lawrence Freedman on quite how badly the war is going for Russia is interesting.

https://samf.substack.com/p/space-and-time?s=r

Many thanks for this. I've been looking for sensible, coherent analysis since the invasion began and failed to find it in the Press. Have now bookmarked the site and look forward to the next article with much interest. Good comments too.

[Bryn]

I have no idea who she is or where she has a following. What I found interesting and thought-provoking was the idea that the "best" outcome from NATO's standpoint indeed might involve drawing Russia into an expensive and draining quagmire, with Ukraine and its population as a disposable element of that "game". Yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, Dominic Raab started putting out the message that the situation in Ukraine is likely to last some considerable time.

Sorry, but what is the evidence for Putin being actively drawn into "an expensive and draining quagmire . . . " by NATO? That is just a sleight of hand way of passing the blame from Putin to others. As far as I can ascertain, it has been and remains the states which escaped the state-capitalist empire into which the Soviet Union had degenerated, who took the initiative in applying for, and in some cases being accepted for, memberships of NATO. These newly freed states know all too well the threat they face from Putin's Russia. Putin's own statements regarding the history of Russian empires gives the lie to NATO's new members being the basis for his invasion. As to Raab's statement, what is that but a belated rational recognition of the reality of the situation, surely? One does not need to be a supporter of the USA and its allies in order to recognise that this is Putin's expansionist ambitions in action, rather than a defensive manoeuver. If anything, Putin has provoked the USA into beefing up its military cooperation with the new members of NATO.