If Putin really wanted Ukraine back, a much better track would have been to make amends for Holodomor, Stalin's genocide of 5+ million Ukrainians in the 30s. That's mostly what drove the desire for independence in the first place.
Yes, the US has absolutely been provocative. They're using Ukraine as a pawn in their geopolitical agenda.
And yes there is a failure on behalf of most westerners to see both sides too.
Ah yes, Stalin's genocide of millions of Ukrainians in the '30s. Something about which "we" have no knowledge and zero feeling. We can't feel it even if we've heard about it. Feel it the way the Ukrainian people do. Which, again, is not to say the US and EU are innocent aggrieved bystanders. The truth is, a pox on both their houses! The only problem being that one house -- Russia's -- is run by a demented dictator who cares nothing for human life as evidenced by the many Russians murdered or silenced by his regime. Everything he has to say, as a result, is unbalanced horseshit.
If Russians today are to be held responsible for Holodomor than the Americans would face an even longer list of genocidal wars they have begun and waged, not to mention countless assassinations and coups, often overturning democratically elected leaders so their puppets can be put in place.
Putin was not responsible for Holodomor. You are talking about something which happened nearly a century ago for heaven's sake.
Germans and Japanese today are not responsible for the horrors committed by their countries in past wars and neither are Americans responsible for the horrors committed by their Governments in the past. The present is a different matter.
You want today, or rather the decades Putin has been in power? Check out the murders, assassinations, stifling of dissent, absolute corruption, cronyism, billions made at the cost of a true economy and on and on. I would never excuse the evil and corruption in the West for centuries. The hardest pill (or jab) to swallow is what's been going on with an untested harmful "vaccine" forced on a population hypnotized by fear drummed into their heads for two years. But two wrongs don't make a right! Judged objectively Putin is a criminal and mentally unbalanced to boot. Glad I'm not someone in Russia with a conscience about what's happening now.
Two wrongs do not make a right but an informed perspective is our best weapon for ensuring there are fewer wrongs.
As to Putin's actions, given the history of murders, assassinations, political corruption, cronyism, billions made out of modern slave labour, illegals, etc., by the United States, one can hardly point the finger.
What Putin is or is not, is a matter for the Russian people and having spent time in Russia I can tell you, he is very popular. The Russians look at American Presidents and think why do you put up with them? However, American Presidents are a matter for the American people.
No, judged objectively Putin is no more a criminal than most American Presidents over the last half century. As to being mentally unbalanced, again, compared to some American Presidents he appears extremely sane and smarter than a lot of them.
So, in order to understand history we need to gather salient facts and not seek to do a personality destroy on particular individuals.
If you read the history, Putin has been calmly, sanely, forcefully, consistently, strongly, determinedly been requesting, demanding, pleading over decades for Ukraine to remain neutral and for the Americans and Nato to keep their distance. Putin has been mocked, ridiculed, ignored and has put up with that childish behaviour for a long time.
Let us not kid ourselves, if China or Russia were seeking to do on the Canadian or Mexican borders what the US/Nato are seeking to do on the Ukrainian borders, the Americans would invade and occupy Canada and/or Mexico in a nanosecond and hold them permanently.
Remember Bay of Pigs? Was JFK mentally unbalanced to oppose Russian bases in Cuba and act to stop them? Why one rule for the West and different rules for the rest?
Putin only has to follow the American handbook for invasion, occupation, assassination etc., to see where precedents have been set.
As another example, why is Putin evil to seek to create security in regard to Ukraine when the US condones Israel's occupation of a large slab of Syria, Golan Heights, bits of Lebanon and all of Palestine in the name of security?
I agree with you totally on the genetic treatments called vaccines. As we have learned with that, the truth is rarely what we are told and no Government can ever be trusted, not even Western Governments.
Putin has repeatedly denied pretty much even the existence of Holodomor and even under pressure the Russians have wriggled out of admitting genocide.
All the atrocities you mention are recognised in the world. We learn about them in school. Stalin systematically starved to death between 20 and 30% of the Ukrainian population and virtually no one even knows about it. Imagine a world where no one knew about Hiroshima or Auschwitz.
It's not about blaming Russia. It's about understanding why the Ukrainians wanted to GTF away from Russia as soon as they had the chance and why they continue to push for independence. If Putin had actually tried to accept and amend the situation, likely Ukraine would have been back with Russia by now.
But by taking the path of denial he simply exacerbates the wound. His actions have also allowed the Americans to make like John Wayne, when actually they are simply using the Ukrainians for their own geopolitical ends. The Ukrainians believed the Americans because they hated the Russians so much.
Genocidal acts past and present litter the history of most nations, particularly the powerful ones.
Did you learn about the Israeli genocide against Palestine in school? Probably not. Do Americans admit to genocide against Indians? Do the Turks admit to genocide against Armenians? Do Indian Hindus admit to genocide against Muslims and Christians? Human nature being what it is, pretty much no-one has clean hands so while we need to know the past it is not fair to blame those living today for what was done in the past.
Ukraine was independent. The Russians supported their independence if they remained neutral. The fact that they have been played as tools by the West is their responsibility.
Putin DID accept the situation. There is a long, long, long history of him pleading, demanding, insisting etc., that Ukraine remain neutral and not become part of Nato which would bring American missiles to the Russian border. He was rebuffed, ridiculed and rejected. All the work of the hegemonic Americans yet again.
By taking the path of aggression the Americans and their Nato lackeys have created this situation. Your last comment is correct as John Mearsheimer warned in 2015.
America has certainly used the situation to try and further its geopolitical agenda. Though this itself seems confused because it has both typical Western motives to destabilise Putin and straight-up Bush-Cheney style war for profit reasons.
But it still takes two. And Putin did not have to invade. There was no pressure from NATO. They weren't trying to build air bases in Kharkiv. And Putin has built up troops on the border before. Yes, Putin's stated boundaries were deliberately not being respected, as plenty of Americans - Gabbard, Sanders, Chomsky, Taibbi, Greenwald, etc - have pointed out. But it still takes two.
I don't buy that Putin would otherwise have left Ukraine in peace if GWB hadn't pushed for NATO membership. Ukraine is a big chunk of the Russian heart. It's where the Rus come from. It's not easy for Westerners to understand such concepts because they are not tied to the land in the way the Russian people are. But Russians are very heart-centred and they are always gonna want Ukraine back.
Yes, it does take two which is why I raise the hypothetical - would the US act any differently if it had the situation the Russians face on its Canadian or Mexican borders?
I very much doubt it. It takes two but where a dominant power is determined to rule the world, as is the US, and a once dominant power is seeking to protect its security then more responsibility must rest with the aggressor.
The Americans and their Nato lackeys have been poking the Russian 'bear' in the eye since the Soviet Union fell pretty much. The so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine was the work of the CIA. The Russians have actually been very patient with American meddling.
From my time in Russia my sense was the Russians prefer a strong leader and want quality of life. They regret the loss of the Soviet Union for the security it offered, not for the countries it contained.
Putin has been putting up with Western aggression in Ukraine for decades. I don't buy the line he was not prepared to allow it to remain independent.
Actually, perhaps the most ironic thing spending time in Russia, having also spent a lot of time in the US, was the sense of how similar are Russians and Americans. Each looks surprised if you say other nations see them as a threat because they are convinced that they are benign, a force for good in the world even as their actions say other.
The Americans could have left the Cold War behind. They did not want to. As a military industrial complex they need enemies and if they don't exist they have to invent or create them. I mean, why funnel all those trillions into arms if there is no need?
I said it before in a previous post of yours--and I hope this doesn't start to sound trite--but I can't think of any "alternative' voice who appears to be so expertly walking the tightrope of interpreting reality the way you are. Your take has so much nuance and clarity that I am actually moved reading it; realizing just how rare a perspective like yours is right now and how badly it is needed.
Regarding Russel Brand: I have respected and admired his perspective on things for a long time now. However, I have been so disappointed to see the direction he has taken the past several months. It's not so much that I have begun to disagree with him more and more (nothing wrong with disagreement), but there is a sense that what he is doing has become "click-baity" and "grifty", for lack of better words. It's hard not to sense that he is now (either consciously or sub-consciously) presenting alt-right adjacent material because he discovered how much it increases traffic and views. What is really disappointing is knowing how much better he is than the content he is presenting now. Oh well . . . I could easily be wrong about this--just my opinion anyway.
Anyway, I too stand with Ukraine against Putin's tyranny. I mean, this seems like it should be pretty straightforward.
I agree, I used to find him entertaining and enlightening. Now there's a vibe to him that I just can't watch. I think he has at least somewhat been subject to 'audience capture'.
I agree that naked and brutal totalitarianism is a much worse direction for the thrust of global society to turn to than liberal democracy. It’s also hard not to wince in anger and regret at the hypocrisy that liberal governments, led in principles and hegemonic power by the US, are corrupted by — as well as the corrosive influence this corruption has had on the spread of democratic values across the Global South and East. Numerous times, the US has covertly meddled in elections or orchestrated coups of progressive, democratically elected presidents abroad to install fascistic, pro-corporate despots friendly to Western market interests. From Iran to Chile to Brazil and even Ukraine and Russia, these illiberal interventions have fed the soil of autocracies to come, both by destabilizing and terrorizing fledgling democracies and disillusioning the world to the promises of liberalism when its most vaunted proponent, the US, is so often complicit in cutting foreign democracies off at the knees when it enriches the US oligarchic class. The role of the World Bank and IMF in draining the developing world of wealth and progressive prospects is a recipe for future autocratic movements. The US, through the CIAs machinations, often ally with and arm murderous anti-democratic forces (Contras, Taliban, Mujahideen, Isis, etc) that lead to tyrannical regimes. And look no further than our allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia to see the hypocrisy on full display.
Yes, we can and should decry Putin’s tyranny and stand up for liberal values. But we can’t pretend that the past 75 years of US hegemonic power has been a foil or antidote to the frightening rise of authoritarianism abroad. Both critiques feel valid and crucial right now as we stand at an ideological point of reckoning and the likely advent of a new hypernationalism and Cold War. It seems to me, Liberalism that cynically works against it’s own values is illiberal at its core. Authoritarianism follows in its wake.
I wrote this comment before, on the @from russia with hate" start by Daniel. It was somehow removed or I did something wrong. I think the comment fits better here.
I use different words, but have similar feeling. 10.000s of regression therapy sessions tell us, that most of what we are really suffering from has causes beneath our conscious memory, 85 % or more within the last two generations. No healthy and prosperous Europe is possible without its Russian back-land and its resources. Putins grand parents must have lived around the beginning of the 20th century. Russia czar, like all regimes, based on slave and worker exploitation without pity. Little difference. Worldwar1, the bolsewiks revolution, Panic in US and UK, then the defeat of the anarchists, of Lenin and Trotsky. No pity...Stalin doctrine creating USSR. West doing everything possible to avoid the illusion of "workers" regimes gain more power. Gigantic financial supports for anti communist movements. Stalin killing millions, many in Ukrain areas . Hitler funded by liberal capitalism, to fight the communists. Hitler cheats, also fights on western frontiers (as a revenge for WW1). Hitler turning against UdssR. Another wave of raging violence over the Ukrain areas. Again million killed. Then USSR stops the Hitler machine, costing them million lives, and their country ravaged. But anti communism leads the waves, Stalin expanses USSR in a deal with the US. National frontiers are drawn without any real understanding of folks and traditions. Germans become Polish, Polish become Russian, just one example of what happened in hundreds of cases. Many countries no longer one folk. Corrupt regimes. Again billions of dollars to avoid further worker-regimes spreading in Western Europe. Stalin policy very violent and restrictive, towards all "countries" in the Warshaw Pact. People flee.. towards the so-called free west. USSR cripples, the wall falls. Enter Putin. Seeing the Shock doctrines all around, yes. But also on "his" side, oligarchs using (their stolen) capital. Gathered under Putins hat. Organised power/control. Later he lets some of them leave Russia, (the money is welcome in Chelsea) some oligarchs he sends to prison, he takes over. No scrutiny. Nowhere... A hot team of intelligent capitalist under tyrannic protection and direction. No scrutiny. Not in Africa, not in Syria, not against national political resistance. But who/what did he fight in Syria? In Afghanistan? Who is on the other end of mirror? We can see how he uses his power. We know how this frame of mind is created. I agree, we are better off, under a mild repressive tolerance. Why are we then selling weapons to let other peoples/regions fight him? Whose business is this? Whose shadow is he? When your answer is: Hitler (and that is close)...who punished the Germans after WW1, who funded and weaponized Hitler? Does our subconscious forget? Why are our media so convincing? What do we really use, of all the insights we have about trauma, and the wisdom that hate is love turned upside down. Hopefully we can get rid of crazy man Putin, but who is the new boss? No time for relativism - true. But sorry, no time for continued hypocrisy either. Cry in front of your mirror.
I think any discussion of war these days has to be preceded by the reinstatement of a draft. We have what amounts to a mercenary army of people who couldn’t afford our outrageous college tuition or attended one of those high schools where you were graduated reading on a third grade level. Virtually none of our loquacious and opinionated politicians, journalists and TV pundits have served in the military, and their kids are safe in Ivy League dorms. Yet most seem to relish tough talk of war. My father, a veteran, was always disgusted by this. All this talk lately about equity...let’s have some equity in who is fighting our wars. Get in uniform yourself or encourage your child to enlist and be ready to deploy, then we can talk. I think this would be promote better, more considered policy decisions going forward.
If Putin is Hitler, then Russia is Germany. Dictators don't rise in thriving societies, but usually those that were impoverished, broken, mocked and/or ignored by the world. The world is not black and white. These things don't happen for no reason and out of nowhere. Only those who closely look at all variables will get a good picture of what is truly going on.
Although I agree with a great deal of what you write, Daniel, and honour you as a great teacher, I was disappointed with this piece. At a time when passions run high, and war drums are resounding, is it not better to seek spiritual guidance and look to new ways that do not lead straight into the old conflicts - where the West is the good guy, Russia the bad guy, and the US et.. al. given exceptionalism yet again to be the 'saviour' despite all the ways we could have tried to broker peace instead of making Russia The Enemy?
War is highly profitable. These narratives of good vs bad are too simplistic. Do we want to inflame enmity in others? Have that on our hearts? No one wins a war, and a war never ends. I agree with Greenwald, Hedges and Brand in this case: respectfully, I think it better to look to own nations' responsibilities (I'm Canadian), our own nation's ideologies of exceptionalism and enemy-making. That is the consciousness that needs to change, in all of us. Thanks for writing.
Precisely. Saying Holodomor happened nearly a century ago so what has nothing to do with how the Ukrainians themselves FEEL about it. Their own people perished by the millions. More recently, they also had to deal with a brutal, corrupt "president" who followed Putin's orders, impoverishing his people while building an obscenely huge palace for himself. They overthrew him in 2014 by going into the streets. Lives were lost. That's front and center in the memoires of Ukrainians. What the Russian people think of America and its politics is beside the point. We Americans know what a corrupt clown show that is. That's OUR challenge. Are we up to overthrowing it? Somehow given our level of distraction and addiction I doubt it.
You cannot always blame everything on the West but you can find the facts and understand that this crisis is a creation of the West, most particularly the US and its Nato allies/lackeys.
Putin has been asking, requesting, pleading for decades that Ukraine remain neutral as originally promised by the US and Nato when the Soviet Union fell. He was ignored and the missile creep kept coming toward the Russian border.
The Ukrainians were mere pawns in the American/Nato game, as is the way and should have known better than to hold the stick with which the Americans/Nato kept poking in the eye of the Russian 'bear.'
This is a tragedy for Ukrainians and Russians but it is not one of Putin's making.
If you swapped the scenario and had Russia trying to do on the Canadian/US border what is being attempted on the Ukrainian/Russian border, it is without doubt that the Americans would invade Canada in an instant.
You only have to look at the history to see how the West has created this situation.
Perhaps explain why it is wrong for Putin to seek to take Ukraine to prevent US/Nato missile launchers on the Russian border and yet it was not wrong for the Americans to get hysterical and threaten nuclear war when the Russians wanted to put a base in Cuba?
Relativism diminishes hypocrisy and there is a lot of that around. For example, what do you think the US would do if Russia or China were looking to set up missile launchers on the Canadian or Mexican borders? That is the equivalent of the Ukraine situation for Russia. We both know the Americans would invade and occupy in a nanosecond and probably never leave, in the name of security.
And why is Russia so wrong when Israel, in the name and claim of 'security' and with US approval continues to occupy all of Palestine, bits of Lebanon and a slab of Syria, the Golan Heights?????
But I believe blame was placed where it was due in Daniel's article. No one is sweeping anything under the rug here, and no one is being left of the hook. The point is that the horror that is currently unfolding in Ukraine is the direct result of Putin making a decision to invade. He could also have not done so. Yes, there is a lot of context here--but ultimately he made the decision to invade, he is the aggressor, he is at fault. Whataboutism and relativism get in the way of moral clarity concerning the situation.
Putin made the decision to take a stand after drawing a line in the sand years ago and making it clear that the American/Nato aggression had its limits. Did he make a decision to invade or did the Natomericans push and push and push until there was no choice?
If you poke and poke and poke someone with a stick and they turn around and punch you, whose fault is it? The moral clarity is that Nato, pushed by the Americans, have been threatening Russia for decades and have ignored, indeed, mocked, Russian protests.
Take a look at the Nato map in 1998 and take a look at it today. And then tell me, if the Chinese or Russians had done the same thing to the US, what do you think the Americans would have done? Think about it. Chinese missile launchers on the Canadian and/or Mexican borders? Would the US allow it? Doubt it.
The Russian perspective.
At the Malta Summit in 1989, George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, persuaded a reluctant Gorbachev to support a unified Germany.. In return, and in very explicit terms, it was agreed upon that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward".
At the time NATO numbered 13 member nations (today there are 30) Fast forward to 1996, when, during the closing months of Bill Clinton's Presidency, he expressed support for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join NATO. The US first expressed interest in Ukraine as a possible NATO candidate in 2008.
At the time Sergei Lavrov made it clear in no uncertain terms that Russia would never allow that. Theyve seen this movie before and clearly Putin isn't taking any chances here..Given the strategic significance of Ukraine, one can hardly blame him.
Dr. Laruelle is the author of Russian Nationalism: Imaginaries, Doctrines, and Political Battlefields (2019). She is Research Professor and Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at the George Washington University. She is also a Co-Director of PONARS (Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia.
Snyder and Anne Applebaum keep busy writing book blurbs for each other, while Michel Eltchaninoff stakes out a position in the cottage industry of essayists on the perils of "Putinism".
All the countries to the west of Ukraine are NATO members...If Putin wants a Ukranian shield against NATO nations, taking Ukraine for that purpose seems foolish
https://commons.com.ua/en/letter-western-left-kyiv/?fbclid=IwAR1undm8nMyt5fqXyOGVKXZwm8GIeBGYvVtWelYA83ro79dKlPhsge4mua0
Letter from a young Socialist in Ukraine.
If Putin really wanted Ukraine back, a much better track would have been to make amends for Holodomor, Stalin's genocide of 5+ million Ukrainians in the 30s. That's mostly what drove the desire for independence in the first place.
Yes, the US has absolutely been provocative. They're using Ukraine as a pawn in their geopolitical agenda.
And yes there is a failure on behalf of most westerners to see both sides too.
But Putin is no victim.
https://devaraj2.substack.com/p/holodomor-the-core-wound
Ah yes, Stalin's genocide of millions of Ukrainians in the '30s. Something about which "we" have no knowledge and zero feeling. We can't feel it even if we've heard about it. Feel it the way the Ukrainian people do. Which, again, is not to say the US and EU are innocent aggrieved bystanders. The truth is, a pox on both their houses! The only problem being that one house -- Russia's -- is run by a demented dictator who cares nothing for human life as evidenced by the many Russians murdered or silenced by his regime. Everything he has to say, as a result, is unbalanced horseshit.
If Russians today are to be held responsible for Holodomor than the Americans would face an even longer list of genocidal wars they have begun and waged, not to mention countless assassinations and coups, often overturning democratically elected leaders so their puppets can be put in place.
Putin was not responsible for Holodomor. You are talking about something which happened nearly a century ago for heaven's sake.
Germans and Japanese today are not responsible for the horrors committed by their countries in past wars and neither are Americans responsible for the horrors committed by their Governments in the past. The present is a different matter.
You want today, or rather the decades Putin has been in power? Check out the murders, assassinations, stifling of dissent, absolute corruption, cronyism, billions made at the cost of a true economy and on and on. I would never excuse the evil and corruption in the West for centuries. The hardest pill (or jab) to swallow is what's been going on with an untested harmful "vaccine" forced on a population hypnotized by fear drummed into their heads for two years. But two wrongs don't make a right! Judged objectively Putin is a criminal and mentally unbalanced to boot. Glad I'm not someone in Russia with a conscience about what's happening now.
Two wrongs do not make a right but an informed perspective is our best weapon for ensuring there are fewer wrongs.
As to Putin's actions, given the history of murders, assassinations, political corruption, cronyism, billions made out of modern slave labour, illegals, etc., by the United States, one can hardly point the finger.
What Putin is or is not, is a matter for the Russian people and having spent time in Russia I can tell you, he is very popular. The Russians look at American Presidents and think why do you put up with them? However, American Presidents are a matter for the American people.
No, judged objectively Putin is no more a criminal than most American Presidents over the last half century. As to being mentally unbalanced, again, compared to some American Presidents he appears extremely sane and smarter than a lot of them.
So, in order to understand history we need to gather salient facts and not seek to do a personality destroy on particular individuals.
If you read the history, Putin has been calmly, sanely, forcefully, consistently, strongly, determinedly been requesting, demanding, pleading over decades for Ukraine to remain neutral and for the Americans and Nato to keep their distance. Putin has been mocked, ridiculed, ignored and has put up with that childish behaviour for a long time.
Let us not kid ourselves, if China or Russia were seeking to do on the Canadian or Mexican borders what the US/Nato are seeking to do on the Ukrainian borders, the Americans would invade and occupy Canada and/or Mexico in a nanosecond and hold them permanently.
Remember Bay of Pigs? Was JFK mentally unbalanced to oppose Russian bases in Cuba and act to stop them? Why one rule for the West and different rules for the rest?
Putin only has to follow the American handbook for invasion, occupation, assassination etc., to see where precedents have been set.
As another example, why is Putin evil to seek to create security in regard to Ukraine when the US condones Israel's occupation of a large slab of Syria, Golan Heights, bits of Lebanon and all of Palestine in the name of security?
I agree with you totally on the genetic treatments called vaccines. As we have learned with that, the truth is rarely what we are told and no Government can ever be trusted, not even Western Governments.
Well said. Agree 100%
Putin has repeatedly denied pretty much even the existence of Holodomor and even under pressure the Russians have wriggled out of admitting genocide.
All the atrocities you mention are recognised in the world. We learn about them in school. Stalin systematically starved to death between 20 and 30% of the Ukrainian population and virtually no one even knows about it. Imagine a world where no one knew about Hiroshima or Auschwitz.
It's not about blaming Russia. It's about understanding why the Ukrainians wanted to GTF away from Russia as soon as they had the chance and why they continue to push for independence. If Putin had actually tried to accept and amend the situation, likely Ukraine would have been back with Russia by now.
But by taking the path of denial he simply exacerbates the wound. His actions have also allowed the Americans to make like John Wayne, when actually they are simply using the Ukrainians for their own geopolitical ends. The Ukrainians believed the Americans because they hated the Russians so much.
Genocidal acts past and present litter the history of most nations, particularly the powerful ones.
Did you learn about the Israeli genocide against Palestine in school? Probably not. Do Americans admit to genocide against Indians? Do the Turks admit to genocide against Armenians? Do Indian Hindus admit to genocide against Muslims and Christians? Human nature being what it is, pretty much no-one has clean hands so while we need to know the past it is not fair to blame those living today for what was done in the past.
Ukraine was independent. The Russians supported their independence if they remained neutral. The fact that they have been played as tools by the West is their responsibility.
Putin DID accept the situation. There is a long, long, long history of him pleading, demanding, insisting etc., that Ukraine remain neutral and not become part of Nato which would bring American missiles to the Russian border. He was rebuffed, ridiculed and rejected. All the work of the hegemonic Americans yet again.
By taking the path of aggression the Americans and their Nato lackeys have created this situation. Your last comment is correct as John Mearsheimer warned in 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=1s
America has certainly used the situation to try and further its geopolitical agenda. Though this itself seems confused because it has both typical Western motives to destabilise Putin and straight-up Bush-Cheney style war for profit reasons.
But it still takes two. And Putin did not have to invade. There was no pressure from NATO. They weren't trying to build air bases in Kharkiv. And Putin has built up troops on the border before. Yes, Putin's stated boundaries were deliberately not being respected, as plenty of Americans - Gabbard, Sanders, Chomsky, Taibbi, Greenwald, etc - have pointed out. But it still takes two.
I don't buy that Putin would otherwise have left Ukraine in peace if GWB hadn't pushed for NATO membership. Ukraine is a big chunk of the Russian heart. It's where the Rus come from. It's not easy for Westerners to understand such concepts because they are not tied to the land in the way the Russian people are. But Russians are very heart-centred and they are always gonna want Ukraine back.
Yes, it does take two which is why I raise the hypothetical - would the US act any differently if it had the situation the Russians face on its Canadian or Mexican borders?
I very much doubt it. It takes two but where a dominant power is determined to rule the world, as is the US, and a once dominant power is seeking to protect its security then more responsibility must rest with the aggressor.
The Americans and their Nato lackeys have been poking the Russian 'bear' in the eye since the Soviet Union fell pretty much. The so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine was the work of the CIA. The Russians have actually been very patient with American meddling.
From my time in Russia my sense was the Russians prefer a strong leader and want quality of life. They regret the loss of the Soviet Union for the security it offered, not for the countries it contained.
Putin has been putting up with Western aggression in Ukraine for decades. I don't buy the line he was not prepared to allow it to remain independent.
Actually, perhaps the most ironic thing spending time in Russia, having also spent a lot of time in the US, was the sense of how similar are Russians and Americans. Each looks surprised if you say other nations see them as a threat because they are convinced that they are benign, a force for good in the world even as their actions say other.
The Americans could have left the Cold War behind. They did not want to. As a military industrial complex they need enemies and if they don't exist they have to invent or create them. I mean, why funnel all those trillions into arms if there is no need?
Russia comes from Rossya which means Red.
I said it before in a previous post of yours--and I hope this doesn't start to sound trite--but I can't think of any "alternative' voice who appears to be so expertly walking the tightrope of interpreting reality the way you are. Your take has so much nuance and clarity that I am actually moved reading it; realizing just how rare a perspective like yours is right now and how badly it is needed.
Regarding Russel Brand: I have respected and admired his perspective on things for a long time now. However, I have been so disappointed to see the direction he has taken the past several months. It's not so much that I have begun to disagree with him more and more (nothing wrong with disagreement), but there is a sense that what he is doing has become "click-baity" and "grifty", for lack of better words. It's hard not to sense that he is now (either consciously or sub-consciously) presenting alt-right adjacent material because he discovered how much it increases traffic and views. What is really disappointing is knowing how much better he is than the content he is presenting now. Oh well . . . I could easily be wrong about this--just my opinion anyway.
Anyway, I too stand with Ukraine against Putin's tyranny. I mean, this seems like it should be pretty straightforward.
thank you!
I agree, I used to find him entertaining and enlightening. Now there's a vibe to him that I just can't watch. I think he has at least somewhat been subject to 'audience capture'.
I agree that naked and brutal totalitarianism is a much worse direction for the thrust of global society to turn to than liberal democracy. It’s also hard not to wince in anger and regret at the hypocrisy that liberal governments, led in principles and hegemonic power by the US, are corrupted by — as well as the corrosive influence this corruption has had on the spread of democratic values across the Global South and East. Numerous times, the US has covertly meddled in elections or orchestrated coups of progressive, democratically elected presidents abroad to install fascistic, pro-corporate despots friendly to Western market interests. From Iran to Chile to Brazil and even Ukraine and Russia, these illiberal interventions have fed the soil of autocracies to come, both by destabilizing and terrorizing fledgling democracies and disillusioning the world to the promises of liberalism when its most vaunted proponent, the US, is so often complicit in cutting foreign democracies off at the knees when it enriches the US oligarchic class. The role of the World Bank and IMF in draining the developing world of wealth and progressive prospects is a recipe for future autocratic movements. The US, through the CIAs machinations, often ally with and arm murderous anti-democratic forces (Contras, Taliban, Mujahideen, Isis, etc) that lead to tyrannical regimes. And look no further than our allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia to see the hypocrisy on full display.
Yes, we can and should decry Putin’s tyranny and stand up for liberal values. But we can’t pretend that the past 75 years of US hegemonic power has been a foil or antidote to the frightening rise of authoritarianism abroad. Both critiques feel valid and crucial right now as we stand at an ideological point of reckoning and the likely advent of a new hypernationalism and Cold War. It seems to me, Liberalism that cynically works against it’s own values is illiberal at its core. Authoritarianism follows in its wake.
I wrote this comment before, on the @from russia with hate" start by Daniel. It was somehow removed or I did something wrong. I think the comment fits better here.
I use different words, but have similar feeling. 10.000s of regression therapy sessions tell us, that most of what we are really suffering from has causes beneath our conscious memory, 85 % or more within the last two generations. No healthy and prosperous Europe is possible without its Russian back-land and its resources. Putins grand parents must have lived around the beginning of the 20th century. Russia czar, like all regimes, based on slave and worker exploitation without pity. Little difference. Worldwar1, the bolsewiks revolution, Panic in US and UK, then the defeat of the anarchists, of Lenin and Trotsky. No pity...Stalin doctrine creating USSR. West doing everything possible to avoid the illusion of "workers" regimes gain more power. Gigantic financial supports for anti communist movements. Stalin killing millions, many in Ukrain areas . Hitler funded by liberal capitalism, to fight the communists. Hitler cheats, also fights on western frontiers (as a revenge for WW1). Hitler turning against UdssR. Another wave of raging violence over the Ukrain areas. Again million killed. Then USSR stops the Hitler machine, costing them million lives, and their country ravaged. But anti communism leads the waves, Stalin expanses USSR in a deal with the US. National frontiers are drawn without any real understanding of folks and traditions. Germans become Polish, Polish become Russian, just one example of what happened in hundreds of cases. Many countries no longer one folk. Corrupt regimes. Again billions of dollars to avoid further worker-regimes spreading in Western Europe. Stalin policy very violent and restrictive, towards all "countries" in the Warshaw Pact. People flee.. towards the so-called free west. USSR cripples, the wall falls. Enter Putin. Seeing the Shock doctrines all around, yes. But also on "his" side, oligarchs using (their stolen) capital. Gathered under Putins hat. Organised power/control. Later he lets some of them leave Russia, (the money is welcome in Chelsea) some oligarchs he sends to prison, he takes over. No scrutiny. Nowhere... A hot team of intelligent capitalist under tyrannic protection and direction. No scrutiny. Not in Africa, not in Syria, not against national political resistance. But who/what did he fight in Syria? In Afghanistan? Who is on the other end of mirror? We can see how he uses his power. We know how this frame of mind is created. I agree, we are better off, under a mild repressive tolerance. Why are we then selling weapons to let other peoples/regions fight him? Whose business is this? Whose shadow is he? When your answer is: Hitler (and that is close)...who punished the Germans after WW1, who funded and weaponized Hitler? Does our subconscious forget? Why are our media so convincing? What do we really use, of all the insights we have about trauma, and the wisdom that hate is love turned upside down. Hopefully we can get rid of crazy man Putin, but who is the new boss? No time for relativism - true. But sorry, no time for continued hypocrisy either. Cry in front of your mirror.
To wit: scuttling liberal rules and norms sets precedents for abominable acts in the future.
https://theintercept.com/2022/02/26/ukraine-war-russia-foreign-policy-norms/
I think any discussion of war these days has to be preceded by the reinstatement of a draft. We have what amounts to a mercenary army of people who couldn’t afford our outrageous college tuition or attended one of those high schools where you were graduated reading on a third grade level. Virtually none of our loquacious and opinionated politicians, journalists and TV pundits have served in the military, and their kids are safe in Ivy League dorms. Yet most seem to relish tough talk of war. My father, a veteran, was always disgusted by this. All this talk lately about equity...let’s have some equity in who is fighting our wars. Get in uniform yourself or encourage your child to enlist and be ready to deploy, then we can talk. I think this would be promote better, more considered policy decisions going forward.
i agree - good idea - or at least National Service
If Putin is Hitler, then Russia is Germany. Dictators don't rise in thriving societies, but usually those that were impoverished, broken, mocked and/or ignored by the world. The world is not black and white. These things don't happen for no reason and out of nowhere. Only those who closely look at all variables will get a good picture of what is truly going on.
Historical perspective helps. Putin is not Hitler, Russia is not Germany and the US and Nato have created this situation over decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=1s
https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis” – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)
Although I agree with a great deal of what you write, Daniel, and honour you as a great teacher, I was disappointed with this piece. At a time when passions run high, and war drums are resounding, is it not better to seek spiritual guidance and look to new ways that do not lead straight into the old conflicts - where the West is the good guy, Russia the bad guy, and the US et.. al. given exceptionalism yet again to be the 'saviour' despite all the ways we could have tried to broker peace instead of making Russia The Enemy?
War is highly profitable. These narratives of good vs bad are too simplistic. Do we want to inflame enmity in others? Have that on our hearts? No one wins a war, and a war never ends. I agree with Greenwald, Hedges and Brand in this case: respectfully, I think it better to look to own nations' responsibilities (I'm Canadian), our own nation's ideologies of exceptionalism and enemy-making. That is the consciousness that needs to change, in all of us. Thanks for writing.
Precisely. Saying Holodomor happened nearly a century ago so what has nothing to do with how the Ukrainians themselves FEEL about it. Their own people perished by the millions. More recently, they also had to deal with a brutal, corrupt "president" who followed Putin's orders, impoverishing his people while building an obscenely huge palace for himself. They overthrew him in 2014 by going into the streets. Lives were lost. That's front and center in the memoires of Ukrainians. What the Russian people think of America and its politics is beside the point. We Americans know what a corrupt clown show that is. That's OUR challenge. Are we up to overthrowing it? Somehow given our level of distraction and addiction I doubt it.
You cannot always blame everything on the West but you can find the facts and understand that this crisis is a creation of the West, most particularly the US and its Nato allies/lackeys.
Putin has been asking, requesting, pleading for decades that Ukraine remain neutral as originally promised by the US and Nato when the Soviet Union fell. He was ignored and the missile creep kept coming toward the Russian border.
The Ukrainians were mere pawns in the American/Nato game, as is the way and should have known better than to hold the stick with which the Americans/Nato kept poking in the eye of the Russian 'bear.'
This is a tragedy for Ukrainians and Russians but it is not one of Putin's making.
If you swapped the scenario and had Russia trying to do on the Canadian/US border what is being attempted on the Ukrainian/Russian border, it is without doubt that the Americans would invade Canada in an instant.
You only have to look at the history to see how the West has created this situation.
Perhaps explain why it is wrong for Putin to seek to take Ukraine to prevent US/Nato missile launchers on the Russian border and yet it was not wrong for the Americans to get hysterical and threaten nuclear war when the Russians wanted to put a base in Cuba?
Relativism diminishes hypocrisy and there is a lot of that around. For example, what do you think the US would do if Russia or China were looking to set up missile launchers on the Canadian or Mexican borders? That is the equivalent of the Ukraine situation for Russia. We both know the Americans would invade and occupy in a nanosecond and probably never leave, in the name of security.
And why is Russia so wrong when Israel, in the name and claim of 'security' and with US approval continues to occupy all of Palestine, bits of Lebanon and a slab of Syria, the Golan Heights?????
The hypocrisy is breathtaking as usual.
you can't always blame everything on the "West"
You can however apportion blame where blame is due.
But I believe blame was placed where it was due in Daniel's article. No one is sweeping anything under the rug here, and no one is being left of the hook. The point is that the horror that is currently unfolding in Ukraine is the direct result of Putin making a decision to invade. He could also have not done so. Yes, there is a lot of context here--but ultimately he made the decision to invade, he is the aggressor, he is at fault. Whataboutism and relativism get in the way of moral clarity concerning the situation.
Putin made the decision to take a stand after drawing a line in the sand years ago and making it clear that the American/Nato aggression had its limits. Did he make a decision to invade or did the Natomericans push and push and push until there was no choice?
If you poke and poke and poke someone with a stick and they turn around and punch you, whose fault is it? The moral clarity is that Nato, pushed by the Americans, have been threatening Russia for decades and have ignored, indeed, mocked, Russian protests.
Take a look at the Nato map in 1998 and take a look at it today. And then tell me, if the Chinese or Russians had done the same thing to the US, what do you think the Americans would have done? Think about it. Chinese missile launchers on the Canadian and/or Mexican borders? Would the US allow it? Doubt it.
The Russian perspective.
At the Malta Summit in 1989, George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, persuaded a reluctant Gorbachev to support a unified Germany.. In return, and in very explicit terms, it was agreed upon that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward".
At the time NATO numbered 13 member nations (today there are 30) Fast forward to 1996, when, during the closing months of Bill Clinton's Presidency, he expressed support for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join NATO. The US first expressed interest in Ukraine as a possible NATO candidate in 2008.
At the time Sergei Lavrov made it clear in no uncertain terms that Russia would never allow that. Theyve seen this movie before and clearly Putin isn't taking any chances here..Given the strategic significance of Ukraine, one can hardly blame him.
Absolute drivel…
Mr. Pinchbeck and his comrades now furiously muttering about the perils of "relativism" lean heavily on the reductionist op-eds of Timothy Snyder.
Historian and political scientist Marlene Laruelle has debunked Snyder's facile "fascist" polemic:
https://www.ponarseurasia.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/Pepm539_Laruelle_Sept2018_4-3.pdf
Dr. Laruelle is the author of Russian Nationalism: Imaginaries, Doctrines, and Political Battlefields (2019). She is Research Professor and Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at the George Washington University. She is also a Co-Director of PONARS (Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia.
Snyder and Anne Applebaum keep busy writing book blurbs for each other, while Michel Eltchaninoff stakes out a position in the cottage industry of essayists on the perils of "Putinism".
I stand with Yemen.
You got a big shoutout in the Rebel Wisdom newsletter here btw:
https://rebelwisdom.substack.com/p/sensemaking-russia-and-ukraine-rebel
All the countries to the west of Ukraine are NATO members...If Putin wants a Ukranian shield against NATO nations, taking Ukraine for that purpose seems foolish
If Putin seeks defence against NATO, taking/occupying Ukraine puts him right next to all the bordering NATO nations to the west.