Ukraine

[Bryn]

Posts are not very effective in showing either irony or sarcasm. I am quite sure that Joseph K is not at all anti-semitic.

As so often, when people are deeply concerned the discussion can grow heated. I would be very sad to see this thread disappear.

Now, more than ever, the ability to have a civilised debate encompassing different points of view should be maintained. Perhaps we could all reflect on that and think about whether what we post is really relevant to the main issue which is Ukraine.

I think the point here is that while there has, without question, been a history of antisemitism from a small minority on the 'left', much, indeed most, of the campaign in which the likes of Nick Cohen participated was entirely without foundation. Any criticism of the modern Israeli state, including its effective apartheid and lebensraum policies, was and is treated as evidence of antisemitism. In participating in such a campaign, Cohen placed himself beyond the pale of rational debate(the irony of "pale" intended).

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think the point here is that while there has, without question, been a history of antisemitism from a small minority on the 'left', much, indeed most, of the campaign in which the likes of Nick Cohen participated was entirely without foundation. Any criticism of the modern Israeli state, including its effective apartheid and lebensraum policies, was and is treated as evidence of antisemitism. In participating in such a campaign, Cohen placed himself beyond the pale of rational debate(the irony of "pale" intended).

Thing is Bryn is using the word lebensraum in relation to Israel really appropriate?

[french frank]

The discussion is actually supposed to be about Ukraine, I thought? It's hard not to 'personalise' in speaking of Putin, though I think even there one can do so in the spirit of trying to understand.

[Bryn]

Thing is Bryn is using the word lebensraum in relation to Israel really appropriate?

I think so. "Living room" has a very different meaning and settlement in annexed territory does not really do the policy justice, either. With due respect to Frenchie's point regarding the central purpose of this thread, I will leave it at that, other than provisionally applauding Naftali Bennett's attempts at mediation in the current conflict.

[Jazzrook]

Didn’t Counterpunch have problem a few years back with a series of fake articles ? That’s the problem with free websites that don’t have the resources to fact-check even on who’s submitting the article . As always with people like Gary there’s the germ of an argument but they just extend the argument too far - as in his latest article in Counterpunch. The blame that can be laid at the West’s door lies only partially in prodding the “Bear” , I.e. Nato expansion , but largely , in my view , in all the mixed messages we’ve been sending out esp Trump, defence cuts and general European disunity, not to mention the fiasco In Afghanistan. Now it’s taken a war to bring about unity and the prospect of NATO getting bigger and stronger.
As I’ve done you the courtesy of reading CP perhaps you could read (or re-read) Timothy Garton Ash in On Kosovo . I think he gets it right - the West shouldn’t have exulted (esp Clinton and Blair ) but it led to Milošević’s exit and it was the right thing to do .T G-A actually went there to ask the Serbs what they thought - unlike most commentators.
Despite your revulsion at the Mail you should read Hitchens today. It s the only piece I’ve read in any traditional newspaper which questions the West’s response to the Ukraine and though you might well feel he goes too far it seems to align with quite a few of your opinions if I have correctly interpreted them . I think it’s quite important to publish pieces which run against the overwhelming trend and though I don’t like a lot of Mail journalism good on them for doing it. Refusing to read the Mail is as wrong as refusing to read Counterpunch isn’t it ?

On a general point I’ve once or twice been asked questions on this strand which have been answered in earlier posts - to avoid wasting my time and more importantly boring people I haven’t responded.

I usually despise Mail journalism but that Peter Hitchens article was excellent and stood out against the suffocating consensus:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10581335/PETER-HITCHENS-saw-coming-Thats-wont-join-carnival-hypocrisy.html

JR

[Barbirollians]

I would never regard Hitchens as a reliable source - the Orange Revolution , Russia persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1996 with security guarantees all broken , the corrupt puppet regimes of Yanukovich all seem to escape him.

[french frank]

I usually despise Mail journalism but that Peter Hitchens article was excellent and stood out against the suffocating consensus:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10581335/PETER-HITCHENS-saw-coming-Thats-wont-join-carnival-hypocrisy.html

JR

I can't keep up with Peter Hitchens' political standpoint. I'm still not sure what this is other than - apparently - stressing an anti-Ukrainian [state]/pro-Russian [people] point of view which is not an exact equivalence (I can't pretend to know the timeline of Donbas Russian separatism v Ukrainian anti-Russian activity).

Hitchens also repeats the disputed claim that the West promised not to expand NATO ("I know that our policy of Nato expansion – which we had promised not to do and which we knew infuriated Russians – played its part in bringing about this crisis.") Apparently scholars have looked for evidence that there was ever any such a commitment and the only issue approaching that was James Baker saying, at the time of the break-up of the USSR, that they promised not to "commit NATO troops" - ever - to East German territory. Russia has subsequently interpreted that as being a 'promise not to expand NATO' to the east.

It seems to me that one should look more widely for any signs of aggression, and accept that such signs will give hope to one side and create fear in others.

[Barbirollians]

I can't keep up with Peter Hitchens' political standpoint. I'm still not sure what this is other than - apparently - stressing an anti-Ukrainian [state]/pro-Russian [people] point of view which is not an exact equivalence (I can't pretend to know the timeline of Donbas Russian separatism v Ukrainian anti-Russian activity).

Hitchens also repeats the disputed claim that the West promised not to expand NATO ("I know that our policy of Nato expansion – which we had promised not to do and which we knew infuriated Russians – played its part in bringing about this crisis.") Apparently scholars have looked for evidence that there was ever any such a commitment and the only issue approaching that was James Baker saying, at the time of the break-up of the USSR, that they promised not to "commit NATO troops" - ever - to East German territory. Russia has subsequently interpreted that as being a 'promise not to expand NATO' to the east.

It seems to me that one should look more widely for any signs of aggression, and accept that such signs will give hope to one side and create fear in others.

The reality is that Putin want to return to the Soviet Union but at the head of a kleptocratic autocracy rather than communist totalitarianism . Liberal democracy is the biggest threat to that - if Russians saw it in the Ukraine they might want it for themselves.

[RichardB]

Richard - It’s not right to describe Nick Cohen as “odious” . That is vulgar abuse of a distinguished journalist who has admirers across the political spectrum and it does your argument no service. I think you owe him an apology.

Really? If I ever met him I would give him quite the opposite of an apology, in view of his obsessive and mendacious attacks on socialists, usually on some spurious charge of antisemitism. "Odious" is a much kinder adjective than I am tempted to use. I don't care how many people admire him. But I'm not going to waste more of my time now dealing with that particular individual.

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

[Ein Heldenleben]

I can't keep up with Peter Hitchens' political standpoint. I'm still not sure what this is other than - apparently - stressing an anti-Ukrainian [state]/pro-Russian [people] point of view which is not an exact equivalence (I can't pretend to know the timeline of Donbas Russian separatism v Ukrainian anti-Russian activity).

Hitchens also repeats the disputed claim that the West promised not to expand NATO ("I know that our policy of Nato expansion – which we had promised not to do and which we knew infuriated Russians – played its part in bringing about this crisis.") Apparently scholars have looked for evidence that there was ever any such a commitment and the only issue approaching that was James Baker saying, at the time of the break-up of the USSR, that they promised not to "commit NATO troops" - ever - to East German territory. Russia has subsequently interpreted that as being a 'promise not to expand NATO' to the east.

It seems to me that one should look more widely for any signs of aggression, and accept that such signs will give hope to one side and create fear in others.

I don’t agree with Hitch either but it’s interesting that the Mail published it .

[french frank]

I don’t agree with Hitch either but it’s interesting that the Mail published it .

Well, I was struck watching Fox News to see Tucker Carlson's total incredulity: "Why would we want to support UKRAINE rather than Russia?" The American general answered, "Because Ukraine is a democracy and we support democracies."

But Carlson's response - and that of the extreme right in America - shows that when the right gets extreme enough it meets the left round at the back.

[Joseph K]

Really? If I ever met him I would give him quite the opposite of an apology, in view of his obsessive and mendacious attacks on socialists, usually on some spurious charge of antisemitism. "Odious" is a much kinder adjective than I am tempted to use. I don't care how many people admire him. But I'm not going to waste more of my time now dealing with that particular individual.

Yes, and given Cohen's propensity to swear in some of his columns (putting aside all the calumny he propagates) one can hardly expect his critics to be civil.

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

That is interesting, thanks for sharing.

[LHC]

Well, I was struck watching Fox News to see Tucker Carlson's total incredulity: "Why would we want to support UKRAINE rather than Russia?" The American general answered, "Because Ukraine is a democracy and we support democracies."

But Carlson's response - and that of the extreme right in America - shows that when the right gets extreme enough it meets the left round at the back.

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.

[Serial_Apologist]

Carlson's response - and that of the extreme right in America - shows that when the right gets extreme enough it meets the left round at the back.

It's all too easy to make populist generalisations of this kind. My father repeatedly did, so it goes back a long way - he would speak of going around the back of the "political stage" and finding extreme right and extreme left shaking hands, like they'd just discovered the universe to be round. "After all, Nazism was socialism, wasn't it! They even called themselves National Socialists!" he would scoff. "A lot of Christians call themselves Christians, Dad", I would remind him. We deserve better than this kind of argumentation here: the trouble is, it takes time and space to present counter-arguments to positions that are assumed in a spirit of disingenuousness.

[french frank]

It's all too easy to make populist generalisations of this kind. My father repeatedly did, so it goes back a long way - he would speak of going around the back of the "political stage" and finding extreme right and extreme left shaking hands, like they'd just discovered the universe to be round. "After all, Nazism was socialism, wasn't it! They even called themselves National Socialists!" he would scoff. "A lot of Christians call themselves Christians, Dad", I would remind him. We deserve better than this kind of argumentation here: the trouble is, it takes time and space to present counter-arguments to positions that are assumed in a spirit of disingenuousness.

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.