Anticapitalist Organisations of Russia, Ukraine, and NATO Countries
The criminal war launched by Russian imperialism against Ukraine is the most serious threat to world peace since the end of the Cold War. It brings the world closer to a global conflagration than at any time since Mikhail Gorbachev’s peace initiatives.
The main culprit for this dangerous evolution is US imperialism, which took advantage of the fall of the Soviet Union in order to consolidate its global military network, expand its presence in various parts of the world and launch invasion wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington fostered in Russia and Eastern Europe the adoption of a brutal neoliberal program that created conditions for a far-right drift in most of these countries, especially Russia where it supported Boris Yeltsin’s antidemocratic coup in 1993.
To stress this historical responsibility of the Cold War’s victor does not in the least exonerate the far-right government of Vladimir Putin of its Great-Russian expansionist ambitions, its own militaristic drive and increased global reactionary interventionism and, above all, its murderous invasion of Ukraine, the most brutal invasion of one country by another since the US invasion of Iraq.
In addition to the terrible devastation and death that it brought to Ukraine, the Russian invasion has boosted the global militaristic drive and reinvigorated NATO after years of obsolescence. It is being seized as an opportunity for a sharp rise in military expenditure benefitting military-industrial complexes. This comes at a time when NATO governments themselves keep stressing that Russia’s force has been very much overrated, as proven by the heroic Ukrainian resistance, and when U.S. military expenditure alone is close to 40% of the global total, three times that of China and more than twelve times that of Russia.
As anticapitalist forces, we are as much in solidarity with the Ukrainian people’s resistance as we are radically opposed to this global militaristic drive. We therefore stand indivisibly for the following demands:
Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine
Support for the Ukrainian resistance and its right to get the weapons it needs for its defence from whatever source available
Support for the Russian antiwar movement
Russia should be forced to pay reparations for what it has inflicted on Ukraine
No to any increases in military expenditure—we pledge to launch, as soon as this war ends, a new campaign for global disarmament, the dissolution of all imperialist military alliances and an alternative architecture of international security based on the rule of law.
Open doors in all countries to all refugees fleeing wars in any part of the world
Signatories (as of 11 April 2022):
Social Movement (Sotsialny Rukh) – Ukraine
Black Flag – Ukraine
Russian Socialist Movement (RSD) – Russia
Liberation Road – USA
Solidarity – USA
The Tempest Collective – USA
International Marxist-Humanist Organization – USA
Green Party of Onondaga County (New York) – USA
SAP – Antikapitalisten / Gauche anticapitaliste – Belgium
The antiwar anti-imperialist left worldwide has been deeply divided on the war in Ukraine along quite unusual lines, due to the novelty of the situation represented by Russia’s invasion of a weaker neighboring country with openly stated nationalistic expansionist ambitions, along with NATO’s active and substantial support for the invaded country’s resistance. The same left had already been facing division over Russia’s murderous intervention in Syria after Iran’s, but the conditions were very different.
Moscow intervened on behalf of the existing Syrian government, a fact that some took as a pretext to justify or excuse it. The same would vehemently denounce the equally murderous Saudi-led intervention in Yemen even though the latter likewise took place on behalf of an existing government—an undoubtedly more legitimate government than the now over 50-year-old Syrian dictatorship. (Yemen’s government resulted from elections held in the wake of the 2011 uprising that ousted that country’s long-standing dictator.)
Support to Russia’s military intervention in Syria or, at best, refusal to condemn it were in most cases predicated on a geopolitical one-sided “anti-imperialism” that considered the fate of the Syrian people as subordinate to the supreme goal of opposing U.S.-led Western imperialism seen as supportive of the Syrian uprising. Here again there was a blatant contradiction since those who held such a position did not demonstrate against the U.S.-led war on the so-called Islamic State (IS) and demand that it stop. In fact, some of those who, in the name of opposition to U.S. imperialism, wouldn’t condemn Russia’s intervention in shoring up the Syrian dictatorship, did support the United States’ intervention on the side of the Kurdish YPD, the Syrian co-thinkers of Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in its fight against IS. (The United States even and simultaneously supported Iraq’s pro-Iran militias in the same fight.)
The war in Ukraine presented what looked like a simpler and more straightforward case. Russia waged a war of invasion in Ukraine similar to those waged by U.S. imperialism in various countries since World War II, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. But since it wasn’t Washington but Moscow that was invading, and since those fighting against the invasion weren’t supported by Moscow and Beijing but by Washington and its NATO allies, most of the antiwar anti-imperialist left reacted very differently. One section of that left, taking its neo-campist single-minded opposition to U.S. imperialism and its allies to the extreme, supported Russia, labelling it as “anti-imperialist” by turning the concept of imperialism from one based on the critique of capitalism into one based on a quasi-cultural hatred of the West. Another section acknowledged the imperialist nature of the present Russian state but deemed it to be a lesser imperialist power that ought not to be opposed according to the logic of the “lesser evil” rightly criticized by Jeffrey St Clair.
Still another section of the antiwar anti-imperialist left, acknowledging likewise the imperialist nature of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, condemned it, and demanded that it stop. However, it fell short of supporting Ukraine’s resistance to the invasion, except by piously wishing it success, while refusing to support its right to get the weapons it needs for its defense. Worse still, most of the same oppose the delivery of such weapons by the NATO powers in a blatant subordination of the fate of the Ukrainians to the presumed “supreme” consideration of anti-Western anti-imperialism.
The most hypocritical iteration of this attitude has consisted in feigning concern for Ukrainians who are represented as being used by NATO as cannon fodder in a proxy inter-imperialist war. In that respect, much is made of an interview with Chas Freeman, a 79-year-old former U.S. official who retired from government service in 1994 after holding a series of positions, including that of U.S. ambassador to the Saudi kingdom at the time of the 1991 U.S. destruction of Iraq. The interview was conducted by the Russian-propaganda, antivaxx, and conspiracy-theorist Grayzone website. Asked what he thought of Ukraine’s president Zelensky saying, according to Grayzone, that he was told by NATO members that they were not going to let his country into NATO, but would publicly leave the door open, Freeman replied:
I think this is remarkably cynical, or perhaps it was naïve and unrealistic on the part of leaders in the West. Zelenskyy is obviously a very intelligent man, and he saw what the consequences of being put in what he called limbo would be: namely, Ukraine would be hung out to dry. And the West was basically saying, ‘We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,’ which essentially remains our stand.
Later on, in the same interview, Freeman was asked about the view that Ukraine is used as cannon fodder against Russia, a view that is prevalent in Washington according to Grayzone. Freeman replied: “This is essentially cost-free from the United States as long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us.” In his responses, Freeman sounded more like blaming NATO for not letting Ukraine in, and the United States for not fighting for Ukraine, as if he wished that the Alliance get directly involved in the defense of Ukraine’s territory and sovereignty instead of putting it in limbo.
And yet, the quote about fighting to the last Ukrainian has been interpreted as a statement by Freeman himself that Washington is using the Ukrainians as proxy soldiers and pushing them to fight until the last of them and treated as if it were an official statement of U.S. policy. Vladimir Putin himself repeated the same “until the last Ukrainian” sentence on April 12. Hence, a phony show of pity for the Ukrainians depicted as being cynically sent weapons by NATO powers so that they carry on fighting until total exhaustion. This allows those expressing such views to oppose NATO governments’ delivery of defensive weapons to the Ukrainians in the guise of humanistic concerns about them.
This fake sympathy, however, totally obliterates the Ukrainians’ agency, to the point of contradicting the most obvious: not a single day has passed since the Russian invasion began without the Ukrainian president publicly blaming NATO powers for not sending enough weapons, both quantitatively and qualitatively! If NATO imperialist powers were cynically using the Ukrainians to drain their Russian imperialist rival, as that type of incoherent analysis would have it, they would certainly not need to be begged to send more weapons.
The truth is that key NATO powers—not least among them France and Germany, both of them major suppliers of weapons to Ukraine—are eager to see the war stop. Although the war has substantial benefits to their military industrial complexes, such specific sectors’ gains are far outweighed by the overall impact of looming energy shortages, rising inflation, massive refugee crisis, and disruption to the international capitalist system as a whole, at a time of global political uncertainty and rise of the far right.
Finally, another section of the global antiwar anti-imperialist left rejects the provision of weapons to the Ukrainians in the name of peace, advocating negotiations as an alternative to war. One could believe that we were back to the time of the Vietnam war, when the antiwar movement was split between pro-Moscow Communist Parties who advocated peace and the radical left that openly wished for Vietnam’s victory against the U.S. invasion. The situation today is quite different, however. At the time of Vietnam, both wings of the antiwar movement were in full solidarity with the Vietnamese. Both supported the Vietnamese’s right to acquire weapons for their defense. Their disagreement was tactical, about which slogan to put forward in order to most effectively build an antiwar movement that could help Vietnam in its national struggle.
Today, on the other hand, those who advocate “peace” while opposing the Ukrainians’ right to acquire weapons for their defense are counterposing peace to fighting. In other words, they are wishing for the capitulation of Ukraine—for which “peace” could have resulted if the Ukrainians had not been armed and hence not been able to defend their country? We could have been writing “Order prevails in Kyiv!” today, but that would have been the New Order forced by Moscow on the Ukrainian nation under the most deceitful pretext of “denazification”.
Negotiations are going on between Kyiv and Moscow, under the aegis of NATO member Turkey. They won’t lead to a peace treaty except in one of two ways. One is that Ukraine will no longer be able to carry on fighting and will have to capitulate and accept Moscow’s diktat, even if this diktat has been considerably watered down from Putin’s initially stated goals due to the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces and population. The second possibility is that Russia will no longer be able to carry on fighting, either militarily because of the moral exhaustion of its troops, or economically because of widespread dissatisfaction among the Russian population—in the same way that, in the First World War, the difficulties encountered by Czarist Russia’s troops and the economic consequences of the war on the Russian population led the latter to rise up and bring Czarism down in 1917 (a similar cause led to the failed 1905 Revolution in the wake of Russia’s defeat in its war against Japan).
True internationalists, antiwar advocates, and anti-imperialists can only be wholeheartedly in favor of the second scenario. They must therefore support the Ukrainians’ right to get the weapons they need for their defense. The opposite position amounts to support for Russia’s imperialist aggression, whatever claim to the contrary may go along with it.
The conflict in Yemen has been going on for a long time with horrendous human consequences. Non specialists find the situation extremely complex, with many internal parties and many outside players, so it makes sense to talk to one of the English-speaking world’s leading experts on Yemen, Helen Lackner, a research associate at SOAS at the University of London and author of, among other works, the award-winning Yemen in Crisis: The Road to War, which will be coming out in a new updated edition from Saqi in August, and Yemen: Poverty and Conflict, to be published by Routledge in July. She has lived in Yemen at various times for more than 15 years. She spoke with Steve Shalom of New Politics on April 6 and lightly edited the transcript to bring it up to date.
Steve Shalom (NP): Helen, let’s begin with a brief summary of the scale of the crisis that has been going on in Yemen. Perhaps you can give us some idea of what the stakes are.
Helen Lackner (HL): I suppose fundamentally the stakes are the type of country that will exist after the conflict is over, what type of regime it will have, and how its people are going to survive.
NP: Can you give us some idea of what the human costs have been to date?
HL: We’re now entering the eighth year of the full-scale fighting that started in 2015. This week we’ve had the first truce or serious ceasefire in more than six years. And most importantly, there’s been a blockade of the most populated parts of the country for the same period. So, while a lot of people have been focused on the military activities, which are indeed important, in terms of the impact on the population and the suffering of the population, the blockade and the prevention of basic goods coming into Yemen has been much more significant. While thousands have been killed in fighting, the majority of the estimated 377,000 deaths since the war started have died from indirect causes, specifically malnutrition-related diseases and the lack of medical treatment.
Although 70% of Yemen’s population lives in rural areas, they have been dependent on imports for 90% of the staples in their diet: wheat, rice, and other basic foods. Therefore, the blockade and the collapse of the economy have resulted in a very, very serious economic and humanitarian crisis. The UN estimates that this year more than 20 million people — two thirds of the country’s population — are in need of humanitarian assistance and more than half of the population need food assistance, which is a very serious situation.
The people who are most in need are those who live in the Huthi-controlled areas. The Huthis control about 70% of the country’s population, even though, in terms of geographical area, they only control about a third of the territory, and that is the area that is most in need of support and where people are most isolated and most in need of assistance.
NP: For some 30 years before the Arab Spring, Yemen had a single ruler, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Can you tell us a little bit about his regime?
HL: Saleh came to power in what was then the Yemen Arab Republic in 1978. He then became the President of the Republic of Yemen in 1990 when the Yemen Arab Republic merged with the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY), which had been the only socialist country in the Arab world. If you compare his regime to others in the Arabian Peninsula, you could say it was a democratic, in the sense that it had a multiparty system (after unification, not before) and the parties and elections were not complete and utter farces. There was a real opposition in the Parliament. But at the same time, ultimately, it was a fully autocratic military- led regime where all the major privileges and income etc. went to Saleh and his cronies.
Certainly the democracy in Yemen was less of a farce than in Tunisia, or even in Egypt, prior to the 2011 events, but at the same time, it was ultimately an autocratic regime run by Saleh and his cronies.
NP: What about his external support?
HL: Basically all the foreign states supported Saleh. There were no particular divisions on that front. His relationship with Saudi Arabia was somewhat ambiguous and the Saudis have always had a divide and rule policy in Yemen in the sense that they supported both the regime and various forces either rivaling the regime or opposed to the regime. The Saudis in the past and in the future want Yemen to be both strong and weak enough not to be a destabilizing threat.
With respect to the United States, Saleh promptly supported the U.S. immediately after 911. He was the first ruler to turn up in Washington to offer his support to Bush and he made his sure that he would be seen. (He remembered what had happened in 1990 when Yemen had opposed the United States on going to war with Iraq, leading to the cutoff of U.S. aid.)
So basically what you had was an autocratic regime with a veneer — but maybe a little bit more than a veneer — of democracy. And it was supported by all foreign states. The main interest of the U.S. and most other foreign states involved with Yemen was this vision of the country as a hotbed of terrorism, due to the presence of Al Qaeda. And regardless of the reality and the importance of this, this was their rationale for supporting the regime. It’s not as if any of those countries have had any qualms about supporting autocratic regimes in the region.
NP: Okay, so then we come to 2011 and the Arab Spring. How did this impact Yemen?
HL: You know the Arab Spring in Yemen was a movement that had already started before the beginning of 2011. The previous decade had witnessed an increasing level of frustration and anger by the population in general, due to the deterioration in their living standards and the increasingly limited possibilities within the democratic system that existed. People were giving up on the possibility of changing the regime through elections because they could see that the electoral process was very much manipulated.
It’s a mistake to say that the Yemenis followed Egypt and Tunisia in 2011. Yemenis were already having street demonstrations when these other movements emerged. Of course, Tunisia and later on Egypt really encouraged people very, very strongly. I was in Sanaa when Mubarak fell. People had been demonstrating for weeks and they had set up their tents in various parts of the city. But when Mubarak fell, there was this sudden explosion of car horns and people shouting throughout the city in enthusiasm. So they were already there, but what happened elsewhere encouraged the movement to develop.
And at the same time, Saleh was a very crafty politician. In all the other countries, the main demonstrations were in Tahrir Square, which in English means Liberation Square. Sanaa has a Tahrir Square just like everywhere else, but three weeks earlier, as soon as things started, Saleh had installed his own people into Tahrir Square. So you had a whole load of tents occupied by military and other people supporting Saleh in Tahrir Square, which forced the Yemeni movement to move a mile up the road to settle outside the university. They called their area “change square” — basically it was an area that wasn’t a square and didn’t have a name. So it’s not as if they left Liberation Square; it’s just that Saleh had the skill to occupy the square with his people first.
NP: That’s fascinating.
HL: The movement was a widespread popular movement. Now people always call it a youth movement. But 65-70% of Yemenis are under 25, while people who are over 50 or 60 like us form less than 5% of the total population. So almost anything that happens in a country like Yemen will be a youth movement. The other more interesting thing is that for such a gender-segregated society as Yemen, you had a very strong presence of women. There were nowhere near as many women as men in the movement, but they came out a lot, and that was an important factor. The third factor that people neglect is that the movement brought together people from all parts of the country and from all social groups. All the tribespeople were there. They make up between 60 and 70% of the population. They played a very major role, but so did other social groups, both lower status and some upper status. And by the end, you had all the opposition parties joining in. The demonstrations were taking place not just in the cities, but in all the towns and capitals of the governorates, and that includes some places that barely deserve the name of town — just somewhere between a village and a town. It was a widespread national movement. And given the ease with which people moved from rural to urban areas, almost as many rural as urban people were involved.
This extremely widespread movement basically had one common call, which was for the fall of the regime. This is a sort of negative call, but on the positive side, it was calling for a new Yemen — more democracy — but what it didn’t do was seriously challenge the neoliberal economic approach. I think that was one of its failures. In any case, the movement in the end was sidelined by internal fighting between two of its major factions.
To explain this, I need to go back a bit. On the 18th of March 2011, there was what became known as the Friday of Dignity. Saleh’s forces killed about 50 demonstrators. This created a clear split within the Saleh regime between his supporters and his rivals, including major military figures. Afterwards, the kind of revolutionary people I was just talking about were rapidly marginalized by the increasing power of this military faction plus some of the formal opposition, particularly the tribal Islamist party known as Islah. By the summer of 2011 you actually had a number of military clashes between these two factions, Saleh supporters and elite rivals.
And even earlier, from April onwards, you had a situation where the foreign element — a group of 11 ambassadors that had been constituted as the Friends of Yemen by the British earlier in 2010 — took the lead to try and come to a transitional agreement. This eventually became known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement and was signed and approved in November 2011.
That created the transitional regime, which was supposed to bring about the new Yemen, but it was dominated by these two major elite factions. The so-called new forces of youth, women, and civil society, as well as the more progressive elements from the opposition parties, were very much marginalized in that period. So that’s how you ended up from 2012 to 2014 with a regime from which Saleh was excluded as president, but he remained the head of his political organization and was in a position to seriously undermine the transitional program.
And at the same time, the other part of that government of national unity was also a problem because it was dominated by basically the same rival elite forces as opposed to the more progressive revolutionary forces.
NP: And Saleh’s vice president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, becomes the head of this transitional government that you refer to?
HL: Yes, but Saleh was still very much present as the head of his General People’s Congress, which participated, for example, in the National Dialogue Conference (NDC), which was one of the elements of the transition. And though he personally wasn’t part of the government, his people held half of the positions. So you had a situation where you had a transitional regime, which by definition was unlikely to produce a seriously improved outcome. And I think that’s largely because the GCC agreement, was actually originally an internal agreement within the rival Yemeni elite factions that the GCC decided to adopt at a time when they thought it would give them good status; it didn’t really end up that way.
But basically, the design and the idea were to make some concessions to the revolutionary movement without fundamentally changing the regime, preventing the emergence of a truly different democratic regime that would have sought or fought for more equity and equality. What some of us might call something remotely resembling socialism — or even resembling social democracy was not what they wanted. So basically the GCC deal forced the situation into a combination of Saleh’s people and his rival elites, as opposed to bringing in new people with new ideas.
NP: Are you saying that this was not an external imposition, but really external forces rubber stamping something that came out of Yemeni power dynamics?
HL: I wouldn’t quite say rubber stamp because they made some transformations to the original April agreement within Yemen, and they added something called the implementation mechanism that hadn’t originally been there, but basically what you’re saying is correct.
NP: Okay, so we have this transitional regime, and we have Saleh still around and then what happens to that arrangement?
HL: It collapses. The transition was supposed to last two years, from 2012 to 2014. By the time it officially ended you’d had this government which had basically done nothing except be even more corrupt than previous governments. You had had in 2012 a promise of $8.4 billion in economic support most of which never materialized. So during that period the living conditions of the population continued to deteriorate.
And you had a National Dialogue Conference (NDC) that was supposed to prepare the fundamentals of a new constitution, or at least the new ruling regime, which it also failed to do. What it did do was agree that Yemen should be a federal state. Now there was lots of debate within the NDC about what kind of federal state it should be, how many regions there should be in it, etc.
It also was supposed to deal with two problems that we haven’t talked about yet, which complicate the situation a bit. The first one was the Huthis in the far north, who had been fighting the Saleh regime since 2004. And the second one was the southern separatists, in the former PDRY, who also had various demands and were also pretty split amongst themselves.
So by 2014 what you had was a situation where the NDC had ended, and the transition was supposed to end. And during that period a number of things had happened. One of them was the Huthis had considerably increased their area of control, while participating in the NDC. They had also from 2013 onwards been increasingly cooperating with Saleh because they had certain interests in common. Second, you had the southern separatists, who were completely divided as usual, some of whom participated in the NDC, and others didn’t but that problem continued. So you had a situation in 2014 when the Huthis eventually in alliance with Saleh gradually moved South and took Sanaa, the capital, and took over the government.
Without going into too much detail, the Huthis in alliance with Saleh by 2015 controlled Sanaa and a lot of the country. The Hadi regime after having been put under house arrest escaped to Aden, which they named as the new interim capital. The Huthi-Saleh forces chased them down there, Hadi escapes to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and got the Saudis to launch their offensive on the 26 of March 2015. The Saudis launched their offensive within 24 hours of being asked to do so, which obviously means that they had been preparing for this and that there had been discussions between Hadi and the Saudis prior to that about their support for the effort to restore him to power. And so you have the beginning of the internationalized war.
NP: Are there any foreign backers of the Huthi-Saleh side of this?
HL: At the time when this started, the Huthis – who are often described as Iranian proxies — had very limited relations with Iran and the involvement of Iran was minimal. But the involvement of Iran over the period increased significantly, both militarily and financially, though by comparison with the support of the other side it’s trivial.
Apart from that, the only embassy that stayed open in Sanaa after 2015 was the Russian embassy, which remained open as long as Saleh was alive. After the Huthis killed Saleh in December 2017, the situation changed, and the Russians left.
So at the moment, or at least until the current Ukrainian war, the Russians have been receiving missions from every Yemeni faction that wants to go to Moscow. They had visions of seeing themselves as mediators when the situation permitted. I think this is probably no longer the case at the moment.
So basically in terms of foreign support you have a situation where the Iranian involvement on the Huthi side has increased significantly in the last seven years but it’s still very insignificant by comparison with what’s happening on the other side.
NP: When does the United Nations get involved in trying to settle this?
HL: The UN’s been involved from 2011 onwards. The first UN special envoy was appointed in 2011 and he thought he would achieve a peaceful solution and avoid war. Many people think that his actions and his behavior worsened the situation rather than improved it.
Since 2015 there have been three UN Special Envoys, who basically tried to end the war and restore peace. The second one, who was there from 2018 until late 2021, really got nowhere fast. His predecessor, who served from 2015 to 2018 was a Mauritanian (who’s now Foreign Minister in Mauritania), at least arranged a three-month negotiation attempt in Kuwait in 2016, though that failed for a number of reasons. From that time onwards — until the truce that’s happening now — there was absolutely no progress made of any kind. There was the Stockholm conference of 2018 but really that achieved extremely little.
The new UN special envoy, who is a European, as opposed to being a Brit (the Brits are considered by the Huthis to be basically underlings of the Americans), has started being seen much more positively by most Yemeni parties, and he has, at this point in time, achieved more than anyone else in the sense that he’s achieved this two-month truce which started on April 2. And he’s very actively trying to get all the parties to talk and discuss things in a way which hopefully will be more successful than previous attempts.
NP: The U.S. and British governments are backing and arming Saudi Arabia, but what they say is that they are supporting the internationally recognized Hadi government (the IRG), and that’s the government that ought to be recognized.
HL: The internationally recognized government’s only asset is that it is internationally recognized. Its presence on the ground is almost zero. Hadi and most of his government have been sitting in Riyadh since 2015. Occasionally the southern separatists, who now control Aden, allow some of Hadi’s ministers to turn up in and spend some time in Aden, but they’re really there at the mercy of this southern transitional council group.
And yes, being internationally recognized is its asset, but it’s internationally recognized basically because of UN Security Council resolution 2216 of 2015, which says that Hadi is the legitimate president. Lawyers and legal experts could spend a lot of time analyzing this because he was elected in 2012 for two years. So that ended in February 2014. His term was then extended by the then UN Special Envoy – but I never found any evidence explaining how long the extension was for or on what authority he did this. His own wish? And indeed that particular UN Special Envoy resigned, the day after UNSC Resolution 2216 was passed. So the legitimacy of the Hadi government is something that could keep legal experts busy for a long time.
It’s not as if this government controls much of what’s happening in the country. If you look at the country at the moment, you have the Huthis controlling about two thirds of the population and about one third of the territory and you have the rest of the place that’s divided between five, six, or seven different groups. The group that comes under the name of internationally recognized government (IRG) officially includes the Southern Transitional Council (STC), but the disagreements and the occasional physical fighting between the STC and other parts of the internationally recognized government is almost as intense as that between them and the Huthis. Then you have groups like Saleh’s nephew and his forces who are fighting on the side of the coalition and certainly working with the UAE, but they do not recognize the IRG. So on the one side, you have the Huthis, and on the other side, you have a multiplicity of groups who are currently sitting in Riyadh and possibly trying to agree with each other about something. Maybe, we don’t know.
The Riyadh meeting, effectively only of the anti-Huthi forces as the Huthis refused to attend a meeting in the capital of the main “aggressor” resulted in a fundamental change in the anti-Huthi forces. Under extreme pressure from the Saudis, an 8-person [zero women] Presidential Command Council (PCC) was formed, replacing both Hadi and his Vice-President, both of whom were considered by most as obstacles to any progress, either military or diplomatic. Composed of the main leaders of the fighting factions, its willingness to seek a peaceful solution is doubtful. As it is composed of men who fundamentally disagree with each other and are effectively enemies, even their ability to meet and function as a unit is unlikely. Reminiscent of earlier presidential councils forced upon Yemen by circumstances or outsiders, it is highly unlikely to be a harbinger of good news for the long-suffering Yemeni population,
NP: Did you think Security Council Resolution 2216 was ill-conceived?
HL: Oh absolutely! It was more than ill conceived. Many people call it a war resolution, rather than a peace resolution. It did two fundamental things that have prevented UN personnel from doing anything serious.
First, it recognized Hadi as the President, whose legitimacy is highly debatable. And second, it demanded that the Huthis withdraw to where they were in 2011. Given the size and the expansion of their gains in that period, the likelihood of them agreeing to basically surrender everything they’ve done in 10 years or so, is zero.
The resolution was, according to all assertions, written on more or less under the instructions of the Saudis at that time. But the resolution is still in force. There have been other resolutions that could be used, but it seems that the current UN Special Envoy is managing to do extremely well without changing it so maybe it’s possible to do something simply by ignoring it.
NP: What are the terms of the current ceasefire and what do you see as its prospects?
HL: The talk until it happened was that it would be a ceasefire for the duration of Ramadan. Now it’s been announced to be for two months, so it’s already twice as long as the original talk. The Huthis had said all along that they would agree to a ceasefire if Sanaa airport were reopened and if the blockade, and particularly the fuel blockade on Hudaydah port were ended. These are the two things that they have obtained. To my knowledge, as of 13 April, no flights have yet arrived in Sanaa, but there have already been three fuel ships arriving in Hudaydah in the last few days. So they’ve gotten what they really wanted, I think, from the ceasefire. That’s not the long-term solution, but it’s major progress.
So that’s one element. The other element is that the statement promoting the ceasefire does bring up the issue of Ta’izz. Now Ta’izz is the city where basically there’s been ongoing stalemate and fighting throughout the period. The Stockholm Agreement had a provision about Ta’izz that was completely ignored, from the time it was signed in December 2018, until now. One of the elements of the current truce is the reopening of roads in and around Ta’izz, which is something that’s very important for the people of that city.
Another element which has been emerging in recent weeks has been an indication of progress on the liberation of prisoners. Now the Stockholm Agreement had agreed on the exchange of 16,000 prisoners and absolutely nothing happened, until late 2020 when 1,080 were liberated, but none of the big names. Now according to a lot of things that have been published in the last week, there’s been a new agreement, which will allow the liberation of about 800 more prisoners, including some of the big names that have been talked about throughout the period. I’m assuming that negotiations are continuing on this and will hopefully reach a positive outcome.
This particular truce is the first time since 2016 that anybody has achieved a kind of a ceasefire, so this is significant in itself. It’s happening in the context of the establishment of the Presidential Command Council at a time when the new UN Special Envoy is currently holding consultations with all the different political groups in order to prepare for some more formal negotiations. Whether the PCC will help or hinder his efforts is unclear at this point.
People have been saying from the beginning that there’s no military solution to this war, there’s only a political solution. I regard this as a nonsensical statement. If you look at any war, you always end up with a political solution. When does it happen? It happens either when one side has won and the other one has lost, or when both sides have reached such a stalemate for so long that they’ve given up on trying to win. And I think in this particular case, we are reaching a situation, I think, where the stalemate element is probably the stronger element, because the Huthis for the last two years have been trying a major offensive to take the last stronghold in the northern part of the country of the IRG, a place called Marib. And they have failed.
They have failed because, ultimately, the anti-Huthi forces have actually united and really fought back to prevent them from taking this place. The fact that this has been going on for two years, that a lot of people have gotten killed in the process, has contributed to the Huthis being more willing to negotiate. And they’ve been given what they want, what their primary demands were: namely, to have the Sanaa airport re-opened and the Hudaydah blockade ended, at least temporarily.
So I think there is more hope at this point of coming to some kind of ending of the fighting in Yemen, within maybe a year or so, because there is still going to be an enormous amount of discussion to happen.
But what has to be remembered, is that any discussions that the Special Envoy manages to arrange will be discussions between a group of leading elites who have in the last seven years shown zero consideration for the welfare of the population and have continued fighting primarily because they were increasing their own incomes with the war economy.
It’s not as if it’s going to bring about automatically a peaceful Yemen that would be democratic and address the urgent needs of the population.
I think it’s also important to remember that we are in the Arabian Peninsula. The rest of the Peninsula states are all autocratic monarchies with — okay, a little bit of democracy going on in Kuwait and maybe in Qatar, slightly less autocratic states than Saudi Arabia or UAE. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the ones that dominate and they’re not going to support a social democratic regime that focuses on people’s requirements.
So in the medium to long run, I think there’s a hope for an ending to the fighting; whether that will bring about significant real improvements to the living conditions of the population is a very different question.
NP: Finally, are there particular things that progressive groups in the United States and Britain should be pressing their governments to do to improve the situation in Yemen?
HL: I think there’s things they could try and do, but I don’t think they are very likely to succeed. I think the two things that they should do are, number one, work towards the ending of the arms sales and, number two, demand that their governments help and support efforts to address the needs of the Yemeni population in terms of development and humanitarian program within the perspective of poverty reduction and reducing equalities. I think that’s pretty unlikely, but that’s what they should do.
NP: Thank you, Helen, for this informative and insightful conversation.
Former head of the Ku Lux Klan, David Duke, with Putin’s ‘fascist brain’, Alexander Dugin, discussing how to save the White race
According to Russian president Vladimir Putin:
“The United States continues to receive more and more immigrants, and, as far as I understand, the white, Christian population is already outnumbered … White Christians have become a minority, less than 50 percent now. … Russia is a vast territory, from its western to eastern borders, it is a Eurasian space. But as regards culture, even language group and history, this all is undoubtedly a European space, as it is inhabited by people of this culture. … we have to preserve all this to remain a significant centre in the world.”
Putin’s appeal to “great replacement” theory, his dog-whistle to the “White Christian” world that must be “preserved” lest it become a minority, demonstrates the clear ideological basis of Putin’s status as demi-God to the global far-right, fascist, Nazi and white supremacist movements.
Here’s what David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, had to say when leaving Russia after his five-year sojourn there:
“In this holy cause we must share one immutable principle: all people of European descent, no matter where they reside in the world, are brothers. … Russia has always been a bulwark to the East, the frontier of our race, and it is now on the frontline of our current struggle. It is my prayer that Mother Russia be strong and healthy, may Mother Russia be free; may she always be White. When a racially aware Russia and reawakened America become united in our cause, the world will change. Our race will survive and together we shall go to the stars!”
Years later, exploding with joy following former US president Trump’s chummy press conference with his good mate Putin in Helsinki in 2018, Duke lavished praise on Trump and Putin, believing his wish had come true: “Bravo Trump! Bravo Russia! Russia has values America once had and America the values that Communist Russia had!”
Similarly, French far-right leader Eric Zemmour claims Putin “restored the state,” “stepped in as the last defender of the Christians of the East”, “defends national sovereignty, the family and the Orthodox religion”, contrasting this to liberal, multicultural French politics.
This may be confusing to some who have recently heard that Putin claims he wants to “de-Nazify” Ukraine by bombing it to bits; propaganda can be quite creative. Perhaps more confusing is that there are fascists and Nazis among the vast array of political forces in Ukraine resisting Russia’s imperialist invasion today and intervention in Donbas earlier.
But these are the inherent contradictions of fascism; always based on extreme nationalism and racism, it is near impossible for fascists to collaborate when their “great nations” are in conflict. Try to imagine a collab between Greek and Turkish fascists, for instance.
Not that we should underestimate the malevolence of the Ukrainian fascist forces; we will come to that below. But as we will also see, they are virtually an anomaly in today’s global fascist climate where to be anti-Putin is a non-starter; virtually the entirety of fascist, Nazi, white-supremacist and ultra-rightist forces everywhere in the world have been strongly aligned to the Putin regime; while the political and military forces Russia has installed in the Donbas region of Ukraine are also overwhelmingly fascist. Anyone considering taking seriously Putin’s rhetoric about “de-Nazifying” anywhere should read on for a reality check.
Material basis of Russian imperialism’s alliance with global fascism
The ideological basis of the alliance demonstrates that it is not simply a matter of expediency as sometimes suggested (eg, that Putin’s alliance with European fascism only represents a convergence of interests against the European Union). Nevertheless, this ideological alliance does relate to the concrete material interests of Russian imperialism as it challenges established imperialist powers.
While it is overblown rhetoric to compare Putin’s authoritarian regime, with its parliamentary façade, and its savage litany of crimes against humanity, to Hitler’s totalitarian dictatorship and the Holocaust, this does not mean there are no parallels. German imperialism had been the loser of WWI, and the victorious ‘Allied’ imperialists imposed the winner-take-all Treaty of Versailles on Germany. The rise of extreme German nationalism embodied in Naziism reflected the struggle of the weaker, defeated, imperialist Germany, alongside weaker Italian and Japanese imperialism, against the dominant imperialist powers of the day. These weaker powers had to rely on direct conquest – unnecessary for British and French imperialism which still owned all the world they had earlier conquered, or US imperialism whose economic hegemony was growing. Extreme reactionary ideologies glorifying the mythical past as the ruling class crushes the masses while mobilising them for military conquest with nationalist, racist and militarist slogans fitted well with the needs of these powers.
In broadly similar fashion, the Russian ruling class emerging from the wreckage of the USSR, now heading a smaller Russian Federation, saw itself as ‘defeated’, given the effective domination Russia had exercised over the USSR. While the USSR was not conceived of as an empire, for the reactionary oligarchic elite that arose on the ashes of ‘communism’, the independence of the non-Russian republics was seen as “loss of empire,” and the mythical past of the ‘Great Russian Fatherland’ of the Tsarist Russian Empire extolled as something to aspire to. Of course, there was no unequal treaty a la Versailles imposed on Russia; while the massive immiseration of the Russian working class was imposed by the dictates of the International Monetary Fund and other western state-connected privatisation ‘experts’, the Russian oligarchy was completely complicit in this gigantic plunder, indeed it was its main beneficiary. However, the economic collapse this partnership-in-plunder led to could domestically be blamed on “the West” alone, as a propaganda device to deceive the masses. While I have argued elsewhere that ‘NATO expansion’ cannot be blamed for Putin’s aggression, in the big picture the retention of a US-led, Cold War relic like NATO, as opposed to a new pan-European security architecture, was a further factor that could be used to harness a new Russian nationalist world-view as the rising capitalist elite around Putin strove to overcome its humiliation and strike out as a new, relatively weak, imperialist power.
The strategic orientation of this new Russian imperialism consisted of a number of planks.
The first, more long-term, was embodied in its far-right ideology of ‘Eurasianism’, the idea of uniting Europe and Asia under Russian leadership, which would entail a defeat of off-shore US imperialism and its current hegemony in Europe. Russia, in other words, as the connection between Europe and China; since the turn of the 20th century, geopolitical strategists from the US, Europe and Russia have seen dominating ‘Eurasia’ as key to world domination. In many ways, one could argue this was slowing occurring; Russia’s domination of natural resources, especially oil and gas, and the pipelines, connected it to energy-hungry European and Chinese imperialism as the grand centre. To some extent this dovetailed with the Franco-German imperial project of a Europe more independent of US imperialism; French and German opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, the Russian gas pipeline to Germany, the active diplomacy they engaged in with Russia and Ukraine to prevent war, contrasted to the more confrontational US approach; for the US, avoiding this EU-Russia imperial consortium had been a strategic aim since the end of the Cold War. Beefing up NATO was a major tool of this US strategy, because providing “security” to European imperialism is the main way the US has continued to exercise hegemony there.
Yet how does this Eurasian conception relate to the second leg of Russian imperial strategy – the tendency of the emerging weaker imperialist power to rely more on traditional imperialist methods of direct conquest, straight land grabs, similar, in some way, to weaker German, Italian and Japanese imperialism in the 1930s? Again, Russian imperialism doesn’t possess the global economic hegemony exercised by US and European imperialism, or that China is gaining. This difference should not be exaggerated; the absurd western rhetoric about Putin overturning an imaginary “rules-based international order” is too laughable to require comment; obviously conquest was a past staple of western imperialism, while Russian imperialism has also quietly expanded economically. But the relative difference has become sharper over Ukraine. Obviously one could point to the criminal US invasion of Iraq to highlight the hypocrisy of current western propaganda, but not only was the sheer hubris of this war widely seen as the onset of decline of US global hegemony, but the argument here is not about levels of morality or invasions and violations of international law as such; the US of course is highly “revisionist” on these issues. Rather, the issue if one of formal territorial conquest/annexation as a characteristic of emerging Russian imperialist expansion, which the US has no need for and which even Iraq did not concern.
Yet by invading Ukraine (rather than just Crimea and Donbas, or small parts of Georgia and Moldova), Putin has destroyed the more gradual advance of the Eurasian project; NATO, and US “security” hegemony over Europe, is now more solid than for a generation, and Russia’s European links have been destroyed, symbolised by Germany’s abandonment of Nordstream. While obviously this is the result of catastrophic miscalculation by Putin, it also signifies a limitation of the Eurasian project in its gradualist form: while domination of oil and gas gives Russia bargaining power, in economic terms it means Russia remains eclipsed as the ‘second world’ natural resource supplier of more powerful European and Chinese imperialism. A revanchist Russian Empire, however, drunk on past glory, and its outsized role as the world’s second largest military power, envisages itself as the leader, the centre, of Eurasia. Therefore, asserting its military superiority was important to its “credibility”; it wasn’t going to allow a third world country like Ukraine to demonstrate any independence from the Fatherland. According to professor Jane Burbank, Ukrainian sovereignty was always a problem to ‘Eurasianist’ ideology, one ideologist calling it a “huge danger to all of Eurasia”. Russian leadership of Eurasia required Russian-led unity of the three ‘core’ ex-Soviet states (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), and, as a minimum, control of the north coast of the Black Sea. The Black Sea is full of hydrocarbons, as well as being a strategic waterway, which Russian imperialism did not plan to share with its former colony.
As such the seizure of the Black Sea coastline from the recalcitrant child represented economic, political, military-gendarme, ‘credibility’ and nationalist-ideological objectives at once.
Given these specific needs of the weaker, emerging imperialist power, and its ideological emergence from alleged “national humiliation”, it is logical for the deeply reactionary, revanchist regime to cultivate ties to other extreme right, fascist parties around the world, which can act in Moscow’s interests by challenging the western imperialist leaders from the right without challenging the same capitalist system they are all part of. Not unlike the role of western fascist parties as allies of Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.
A third dimension of Russian imperial strategy has been to strike out beyond the former Soviet sphere, to exert power in regions such as the Middle East and Africa; the intervention of the Russian air force on the side of Assad’s genocidal regime has been the most prominent, alongside a smaller scale intervention in the Libyan civil war, and support for various African dictatorships’ military and ‘security’ needs, via the Wagner paramilitary. These armed interventions accompany growing Russia economic penetration, even if at a far lower level than western or Chinese capital; in Syria, Russia grabs significant parts of the economy while entrenching itself in vital infrastructure such as ports and bases.
While the plunder of Syrian resources as ‘compensation’ for aiding Assad is old gunboat-style imperialism, Russia’s gendarme role in aiding the regional counterrevolution has been appreciated by the US and its regional allies, especially Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Given the sharing of Syrian air space with the US air force (which bombed ISIS as Russia bombed the anti-Assad rebels), the Russian role had more a ‘sub-imperial’ character, rather than that of ‘imperial rivalry’ with US imperialism. But the war also entailed a Bush-Cheney-style “war on terror” Islamophobic ideological construct that was very attractive to the global far-right, who almost universally saw the Assad regime as a defender of “western civilisation” against “Islamic barbarism,” the ideology espoused by the Syrian regime itself. So Assad was another key connection between Putinism and global fascism.
Alexander Dugin: Putin’s fascist brain
The alliance between Putin’s far-right, uber-nationalist ‘United Russia Party’ and global fascism should already seem obvious from an ideological perspective; but in any case, relations are also mediated by an unabashed leading Russian fascist, Alexander Dugin, “former adviser to Sergei Naryshkin, a key member of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party who was appointed Russian foreign intelligence chief in 2016.” Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitics – which advocates his Russian-led ‘Eurasianist’ empire “from Dublin to Vladivostok” – is “assigned to every member of Russia’s General Staff Academy.”
According to one source, “Gestated in anti-communist right-wing activism during the waning days of the Soviet Union, indebted to a specifically anti-liberal and anti-Enlightenment philosophical embrace of authoritarianism, irrationalism, and hyper-nationalism, Dugin dreams of a reborn Orthodox Tsarist state surpassing the borders and spheres of influence as they existed before 1989, of a Novorossiya built not on socialist principles, but fascist ones.” In fact, he criticises traditional fascisms in his 1997 book, Templars of the Proletariat, for moderation; by contrast, in Russia there will emerge a truly “fascist fascism.”
In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin asserts that “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness;” hence Putin’s view that Ukraine has no right to exist and was merely a communist plot by Lenin to destroy the Russian Fatherland, expressed in a long article, and then in the speech he gave before his invasion of Ukraine, is sourced from his fascist philosopher-king. Dugin’s new Tsarist Empire would be a pre-modern one (while happy to use modern technology for weapons that obliterate large numbers of humans); in Novorossiya, according to Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory, “everything is to be cleansed off… science, values, philosophy, art, society, modes, patterns, ‘truths,’ understanding of Being, time and space. All is dead with Modernity. So it should end. We are going to end it.” Clearly, the alliance with the western far-right’s war against liberalism, multi-culturalism, homosexuality, feminism, ‘decadence’ and so on is based on common “values.”
Dugin, like Putin, had a special love for Trump, who he called “the American Putin,” and he has special relationships with American neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Dugin is a contributor to Spencer’s Alternative Right webzine.
Another source of this Dugin/Putin worldview is the Russian Orthodox Church, which promotes the ‘Russian World’ concept, according to which the peoples of the historic territory of ancient Rus are one, including those in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. At the third annual Assembly of the Russian World in November of 2009, Moscow Patriarch Kirill stated that “if we consider the Russian Federation with its present boundaries, then we have sinned against the historical truth and artificially cut off millions of people who are aware of their role in the fate of the Russian World.”
The global far-right and Putin
We will now review the global far-right’s connection to Putin’s regime; hopefully the next sections can be used as a handy guide when Putin supporters pedal out the argument that Putin is fighting “fascism” in Ukraine in the form of the 1000-strong Azov regiment.
Following French National Front leader, Marine Le Pen’s, visit to Moscow in June 2013 at the invitation of State Duma, discussing “issues of common concern, such as Syria, EU enlargement, and gay marriage,” the Front supported the annexation of Crimea, stating that “historically, Crimea is part of Mother Russia.” She visited again in 2017. Her rival on the French far-right, Eric Zammour, reacted to Crimea by proposing a “Russian alliance, the only way to kill both the myth of federal Europe and to finally break away from the American protectorate.”
Similarly, the Nazi-like Jobbik party in Hungary called Putin’s fake Crimea referendum “exemplary.” Leader Gabor Vona visited Moscow in May 2013 at the invite of right-wing nationalists at Moscow State University, where he was hosted by Dugin. The Moscow visit was considered “a major breakthrough” which made “clear that Russian leaders consider Jobbik as a partner.” Bulgaria’s far right Ataka party similarly “insisted that Bulgaria should recognize the results from the referendum for Crimea’s joining to the Russian Federation.”
Not surprisingly, Putin’s Crimea ‘referendum’ – carried out after Russian military occupation forces staged a coup and placed in power the far-right ‘Russian Unity’ party that had received 4 percent of the vote at the previous Crimea elections – did not bother with many international observers. However, Russia did invite a few. Alongside observers from the French National Front, Jobbik and Attaka, the rest of the invitees list – Austrian Freedom Party, Belgian Vlaams Belang, Italy’s Forza Italia and Lega Nord, and Poland’s Self-Defense – reads virtually like a roll-call of the European far-right.
Other European far-right leaders have followed the National Front and Jobbik in their Moscow pilgrimages. In February 2017, three politicians of the German neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD) “flew to Moscow in a private jet paid for by the Russian government,” at a cost of some 25,000 Euro. This was not the only time Moscow was caught funding far-right parties; the French National Front has also been a recipient of Moscow cash which helped finance its 2014 election campaign.
Another far-right leader invited to Moscow by the State Duma, in March 2018, was Geert Wilders, of the arch-Islamophobic Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV). According to Wilders, “Vladimir Putin is a leader, whatever you think of him. … I applaud him as I applaud Mr. Trump for being leaders, who are standing there on behalf of the Russian and the American people … We lack that kind of leadership in Europe.”
The St. Petersburg “Conservative Forum’ was also attended by the British National Party’s former leader Nick Griffin, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party of Greece, Udo Voigt from the German neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD), Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance, former Ku Klux Klan lawyer Sam Dickson and various other fringe lunar rightists, along with Russian fascists led by the Putin-connected Rodina (Motherland) party and the Russian Imperial Movement. The Austrian Freedom Party and Serbian Radical Party were also invited but did not make it. The meeting “was adorned by a line from remarks Putin made in 2013 accusing Europe of backing away ‘from the Christian values at the foundation of European civilization’.”
The St. Petersburg forum launched a World National-Conservative Movement (WNCM), to which some 60 global fascist organisations were invited (full list here), an expanded version of the Alliance for Peace and Freedom (AFP), an existing pro-Putin alliance of 20 fascist parties, led by Fiore, Griffin and Le Pen. The AFP itself was invited into the WNCM; the dozens of other extreme right parties not only covered Europe and the US (including unabashed Nazis like the Nordic Resistance Movement, and the US Confederate League of the South), but also further afield, such as the South African white racist Front Nasionaal, the Nazi-inspired Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and Thailand’s viciously anti-democratic National Alliance for Democracy, the ‘Yellow Shirts’.
Alongside Griffin (by then head of the ‘British Unity” group) and the BNP, other British fascists invited were ‘Britain First’ and ‘UK Life League’. Meanwhile, in February 2020, Tommy Robinson, former head of the fascist English Defence League, visited Moscow to give a lecture in St. Petersburg about “The Rape of Britain” (ie, by immigrants, gays, liberals, the EU etc), though some former associates claim he was also looking for Moscow cash. During her own Moscow sojourn, British racist commentator Katie Hopkins declared that “Putin is not the big baddie the media have made him out to be, as she filmed pro-Putin videos from Russia. Putin puts Russia first. And his people love him for it. Far safer than Londonistan.” Not surprisingly, she was also a favourite of Trump.
The presence of Greece’s Golden Dawn – which explicitly displays Nazi symbols, and who sing the Greek version of the Nazi Party anthem – is hardly surprising, given the close alleged ‘historic’ connection between Russian and Greek fascism and ultra-conservative ideologies connected to Orthodoxy. Golden Dawn leader Michaloliakos even received a letter while in prison from Dugin, who “expressed support for Golden Dawn’s geopolitical positions.”
While US attendance at the St. Petersburg forum was limited to Taylor and Dickson, the US far-right is heavily pro-Putin; not for nothing did David Duke, former head of the Klan, live in Russia for five years (while there he sub-let his apartment to American neo-Nazi Preston Wigginton). Duke believes Russia is “the key to white survival.” In 2014, fellow white supremacist Richard Spencer, who believes Russia is the “sole white power in the world,” invited Dugin to a global conference of the far-right planned to be held in Hungary. Then there’s Matthew Heimbach, founder of the pro-Confederate Traditional Workers Party, who believes “Russia is the leader of the free world” while “Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance.” As widely reported, American Rinaldo Nazzaro runs the neo-Nazi terrorist organisation The Basefrom a Russian apartment. In 2017, far-right commentator Ann Coulter declared that “In 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European.” On the Christian fascist end, evangelist Pat Robertson declared that Putin had been “compelled by God” to invade Ukraine.
Just as the marchers at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 chanted “Russia is our friend,” so likewise at a recent white nationalist event in Florida organised by the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), racist Nick Fuentes prompted the crowd, “Can we get a round of applause for Russia?” The crowd responded by shouting: “Putin! Putin!”
Then there is the more mainstream, parliamentary, far-right, such as former US president Trump itself, whose Putin connections are well-known. As Ukraine exploded, Trump praised Putin as a “genius.” “Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine independent. Oh that’s wonderful. … How smart is that? And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border.” And of course there’s right-wing ideologue and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who recently declared“Putin ain’t woke” in an exchange with Blackwater founder, Eric Prince, who agreed that “The Russian people still know which bathroom to use;” and Trump’s Secretary of State and Christian rightist Mike Pompeo, who declared his “enormous respect” for the “talented statesman;” while Trump’s first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn claimed that after Biden “ignored and laughed at Putin’s legitimate security concerns … President Putin calculated this strategic, historic, and geographic play and made the decision to move.”
Trump loyalist and white supremacist Fox News host Tucker Carlson went full dog-whistle for Putin: “It may be worth asking yourself… why do I hate Putin.. Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a world-wide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?”
This extends around the world, from Modi’s reactionary Hinduvsta regime in India to Brazil’s far-right Trump acolyte Bolsonaro. Both are allied to the US, while India is also geopolitically allied to Russia (above all, balance against China), but the Russia connection is also ideological in the case of its current far-right regime. In Brazil’s case, there is no obvious geopolitical connection to Russia, but Bolsonaro was more pro-Trump than pro-US, leading him into ideological alliance with Putin – Bolsonaro visited Putin on the eve of his invasion and declared he feels “deep solidarity with Russia.”
Fascism in the Donbass
But what of the Donbas? Putin is God to most fascists and Nazis the world over, but in Ukraine the only Nazis are anti-Russia Ukrainians, like Azov, right? In reality, as one source argues:
Let’s look at some of this galaxy of ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi, Orthodox-fascist and neo-Cossack parties and militia involved in the ‘separatist’ political and military leadership; of whom most are actual Russians, from Russia, rather than ethnic Russians from Ukraine.
We could start with the preamble to the constitution of the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ which calls for the “…establishment of a sovereign independent state, based on the restoration of a unified cultural and civilizational space of Russian World, on the basis of its traditional religious, social, cultural and moral values , with the prospect of becoming a part of “Greater Russia” as halo territories of the “Russian World”. This extreme Russian nationalist vision – in a region where Russians are not even a majority – is highlighted by its double-headed eagle flag – ie, the symbol of Tsarist Russia.
First let’s look at Russia’s leading mercenary gang, its equal to the US Blackwater – the Wagner Group, named by its founder after Hitler’s favourite musician. An extremelyvicious militia, but are they fascists? Well, take a look at founder Dmitry Utkin. Pointing to the tattoos on his neck, Idrees Ahmad notes “Those are the Waffen SS rank insignia for a Hauptsturmführer (chief assault leader). And on his chest? That’s the Nazi Reichsadler (imperial eagle) badge.” A candidate to “de-Nazify” Ukraine?
One far-right unit within Wagner operating in Donbas, known as Rusich, sports a logo featuring the ‘Slavic Swastika’ known as a Kolovrat; one Rusich account shows fighters holding a Valknut flag, which has been appropriated by white supremacists.
The first Russian militias in the Donbas were associated with the Russian National Unity party, a neo-Nazi organisation; here is its swastika logo. The DPR’s first ‘people’s governor’, and founder of the Donbas People’s Militia, Pavel Gubarev, was a member of the RNU. The RNU’s founder, Alexander Barkashov, previously led post-Soviet Russia’s first fascist organisation, Pamyat.
Gubarev has since joined the Duginite ‘Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine’, led by Natalya Vitrenko, “a long-term associate of American right-wing extremist and anti-Semite Lyndon LaRouche.” Vitrenko stepped in to help in Donetsk after Gubarev was arrested.
Another Russian fascist involved from the outset was the DPR’s first ‘prime minister’, Aleksander Borodai. In the 1990s, he worked for the newspaper Zavtra, run by idiosyncratic fascist Aleksander Prokhanov, who believed Russia was the mystical womb of Aryan civilisation. In 2011, Borodai and Prekhanov launched “Djen” TV, which promoted “anti-Semitism, Russian nationalism, conspiracy theories, homophobia, misogyny, denunciations of the decadence of European civilization, and treatises on the ‘fiction’ of a Ukrainian national identity.” Prokhanov praised Borodai as a true ‘White Russian nationalist’.
Then there is the neo-Nazi Russkii Obraz, promoted by Putin to ideologically outgun nationalist supporters of oppositionist Navalny. Obraz leader Ilya Goryachev “was a fervent supporter of the neo-Nazi underground, the skinheads who committed hundreds of racist murders in the second half of the 2000s.” In 2014, Obraz found a new home when Aleksandr Matyushin of Obraz “helped to terrorise supporters of the Ukrainian state in Donetsk” and became a major field commander.
For all the inevitable hatred between ultra-nationalist fascists in countries in conflict with each other, their similarity occasionally shows through. In July 2015, then DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko praised Pravy Sector:
“The Right Sector rose and said: “Down with Poroshenko!” I began to respect them. I respect them for two moments: when gays were beaten in Kiev and when they tried to remove Poroshenko. I realized that the Right Sector are the same normal men.”
“Various far-right Italian mercenaries and ultras (the country’s extremist football fans) are even fighting alongside Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine. Many of those combatants have made contact with a neo-Nazi organisation called Rusich, inspired by Pan-Slavism and a longing to recreate a 21st-century nationalistic version of the USSR. The exchange of personnel goes in both directions: in recent years various Italo-Russians have stood in local elections in Rome for Forza Nuova and another neo-fascist party, Fratelli D’Italia.”
Alongside the love of Putin generally, global fascism is also specifically enamoured to one of Putin’s major projects independently of Putin: in their support for Syria’s genocidal Assad regime. Everywhere in the world – in the US, everywhere in Europe, in Australia, various reactionary governments from India to Hungary – the far-right, fascists, Nazis, white-supremacists, far-right populists – almost unanimously support Assad.
This involves more than their connections to Putin, or to Assad’s allies in the Nazi-style Syrian Social Nationalist Party (established in the 1930s in admiration of Naziism, it displays its specific kind of swastika). Rather, the global far-right has lapped up Assad’s propaganda that he is fighting a war for civilisation against “Islamic terrorists” and “jihadists,” protecting Christians and minorities. Assad’s “war on terror”, like that of Israel, the US and Russia, is one global war the far-right fully identifies with.
Not surprisingly, both father and daughter Le Pen have been strongly pro-Assad. In 2012, Jean-Marie Le Pen stated that it was “not abnormal for the Syrian state to defend itself,” so Assad should not be criticised by countries who had fought Nazi Germany! Marine Le Pen in 2015 claimed that Assad is the only person who can rule Syria and save it from chaos. In 2016, former National Front youth leader Julien Rochedy visited Damascus to snap a selfie with his favourite tyrant.
In early September 2013, an Italian delegation from the European Solidarity Front travelled to Damascus and Tartus “in support of the legitimate government of Bashar Al Assad and the Syrian people.” Alongside Forza Nuova, the delegation included the anti-immigrant CasaPound, “the fascist movement that has brought Mussolini back to the mainstream,” which in September 2015 invited the Syrian regime and the SSNP to its ‘International Congress of identity-solidarity’ in Rome. According to leader Simone Di Stefano, “Under the Assad regime, people can celebrate Christmas openly and women are not forced to wear a headscarf. Of course, we like the ideology of the Syrian state, but we also support what they represent.” In 2016, Forza Nuova chief Robert Fiore wrote that his fascist group “defends Assad and the Syrian people against attacks by ISIS and the USA,” in a post showing FN members holding a pro-Assad banner.
When in 2019, CasaPound visited Aleppo, the Syrian Ministry of Tourism tweeted the visit with the message “Syria is getting its tourism groove back.” CasaPound “expressed their pleasure to experience the fast restoration process and resilience & steadfastness of Syrian people.”
Udo Voigt, former leader of the neo-Nazi German NPD, took part in a 2016 Alliance of Peace and Freedom trip to Syria; on his return he noted that he “did not notice any oppression” and therefore “there is no reason to flee,” being an advocate of forcible return of Syrian refugees to Assad. The far-right AfD organised its own “fact-finding” trips to Syria in March 2018 and November 2019, feted by the regime, aimed at proving how “safe” Assad-land is for refugees to return to. The AfD has special links with Assad, via one Kevork Almassian, a Syrian who, curiously, sought asylum in Germany despite being a crazed Assadist, and was given a job in the AfD’s office.
In the US, Richard Spencer, has long argued for courting Assad, who he considers “a civilized person” and “source of stability in this chaotic world.” Even before the war, former Klansman David Duke delivered a speech in Damascus in 2005 on state television, claiming that his country, too, was “occupied by Zionists.” Consistent in his admiration, in March 2017 Duke declared “Assad is a modern day hero standing up to demonic forces seeking to destroy his people and nation – GOD BLESS ASSAD!”
During the 2017 white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, demonstrators proudly wore T-shirts advertising “Bashar’s Barrel Delivery Co.” The white supremacist James Fields who murdered Heather Heyer posted a portrait of Assad with the caption “UNDEFEATED.”
It is quite hard to find any on the US far-right that have not defended Assad, whether in the form of chemical war denialism, slanders of the White Helmets or more general praise for the alleged “defeater of jihadis,” from Alex Jones and his right-wing conspiracist ‘Infowars’, to far-right commentators Ann Coulter, Mike Peinovich , Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy, Tomi Lahren (who sought to remind Trump “that it’s America first”), and of course racist Tucker Carlson. While some mistakenly see Tulsi Gabbard as part of the “left”, in fact her praise for Assad comes from the same place as her strong Zionism, her love for the BJP and her claim to be a “hawk” on the drone wars – ie, right-wing Islamophobia.
Of course, the more mainstream right-wing in the US and elsewhere, as opposed to ultra-rightists and fascists, is a mixed bag. While some on the right are anti-Assad because they are anti-Iran, or because they love US military power and see Assad as a convenient target, overwhelmingly rhetorical anti-Assadism was more prevalent among “liberal interventionist” voices in the Democratic Party, while the hard right tended towards the ‘Assad ain’t good but he’s better than the jihadists’ trope.
Trump was forthright pro-Assad in the lead-up to his election, and maintained that position until Assad betrayed him by using sarin gas, leading Trump to launch a theatrical strike which did close to zero damage to the Assadist military; Trump cut off all Obama-era aid to the Free Syrian Army and even to the civil opposition and ensured anyone backed by the US only fights ISIS. Ted Cruz held a similar position, Assad was bad but is the lesser evil to the Islamists he fights. His campaign manager, Dick Black, was more forthright pro-Assad, visiting Assad in Damascus twice. Black and Cruz are associated with the Christian right, many of whom see Assad as a saviour of Christians against “Islamic extremism.” Another hard reactionary, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also continually called for support to Assad (which didn’t prevent him being very anti-Iran). Then there is old reactionary and Trump ally Newt Gingrich who also reckons “both sides” are as bad as each other. Arch-warmonger John Bolton, whose main policy for 20 years was “attack Iran,” makes an exception with Syria, claiming regime change would result in “al-Qaida” coming to power. Then we have other reactionary neocons and Islamophobe extremists like Daniel Pipes, who penned “Support Assad” against the Islamists, and various ex-neocons like Leslie Gelb who turned to Assad as the shield against terrorism.
Putin, global fascism, Assad and the Israel connection
In 95 percent of the above cases of global far-right support to Assad, these parties, organisations and spokespeople also strongly support Israel and its war against the Palestinian people, for the same reason: Israel is another frontier state in the “war on terror”, a defender of western “civilisation” against “Islamic terrorism.” Given Israel’s nature as an apartheid state, it will be included here as part of the global far-right (as would apartheid South Africa if it still existed), but even for those who don’t accept this, there can be little doubt about the essentially fascistic character of the parties of the Israeli right: former prime minister Netanyahu’s Likud, and other parties of the secular, religious and settler right, such as those of current prime minister Naftali Bennett, and minister under both, Avigdor Lieberman.
Lega Nord leader Salvini has promised that, if elected, he would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as has the German AfD and others. Indeed, just as the AfD has a ‘special relationship’ with Assad via Kevork Almassian, it has a special relationship with Israel via Netanyahu’s son, Yair Netanyahu; after he slammed the “evil” European Union as the enemy to Israel and “all European Christian countries,” he was held up as a “poster boy” by the AfD.
While this may seem problematic given the far-right’s traditional anti-Semitism, the majority the global far-right long ago switchedfrom anti-Semitism to Islamophobia and see Israel, with its hard line against mostly Muslim Palestinians, as a model of the kind of hard anti-immigrant, militaristic ethno-state they fight for, part of their vision of a “Judeo-Christian” Europe “locked in a clash of civilisations against the Muslim world.” Of course, there are exceptions, but these are mostly just genuine throwbacks, actual Nazis or Klansmen (like David Duke), ie, the monkey fringe of the far-right. In any case, Israeli leaders, especially on the Likudnik and allied right, have little problem working with far-right governments and organisations which, despite their love for Israel, still entertain a degree of anti-Semitism.
Even some of the most unrepentant anti-Semites of the Naziesque far-right are concurrently pro-Israel, most prominently Richard Spencer, who describes himself as “a white Zionist,” calling Israel “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state,” which he wants for “whites” in the US. He supported Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s “capital,” and was enthusiastic about Netanyahu’s “nation-state” law. He just doesn’t like “globalist” Jews who live in the US, which leads to “white people being dispossessed from this country,” unlike Israeli Jews “who understand [their] identity, who ha[ve] a sense of nationhood and peoplehood.” Not surprisingly, Spencer’s inspiration, Alexander Dugin, holds similar view: “the chief enemy of the Jewish tradition will come from its own house,” from “the mixed multitude, the assimilated people,” just as “in our own community, in a similar way, the chief enemy of the Russian nation are liberal Russians and not the representatives of other groups.” As in classical anti-Semitism, it is the “cosmopolitan” Jew that is the enemy, not the “traditional” Jew attached to the state of Israel.
This more or less total identity of western fascist support for Assad and Israel is not simply an odd parallel, but is ideologically consistent, support for two “frontlines” in their “civilisational” war against “radical Islam.” But in addition, there is a key connection between the two: the Putin regime, which while intervening in Syria to aid Assad’s victory has also cultivated excellent relations with the Israeli right.
From the moment Russia’s Syria intervention began in 2015, Putin and Israeli prime minister and Likud leader, Zionist extremist Benjamin Netanyahu, never stopped having high level meetings – Netanyahu met with Putin more than with any other world leader. In 2018, Netanyahu was one of only two world leaders standing next to Putin in Red Square commemorating the 73rd anniversary of the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany, alongside Serbia’s Alexander Vucic. Netanyahu even produced a massive billboard showing himself with Putin for the 2019 elections. Not surprisingly, both partners were also enthusiastic allies of Trump. Under his rule, Israel authorized the ‘Cellebrite’ company “to sell its mobile phone hacking device to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, which serves President Putin as a key tool of internal repression and political persecution in the country.”
Israel refused the US request to co-sponsor a UN Security Council move to put a motion to condemn Russia to the General Assembly. Again this caused rebuke from Washington, so Israel voted in favour at the General Assembly, where it had no teeth. Bennett explained that Russia understood Israel’s forced stand, as Russia affirmed, promising that this would not affect their cooperation in Syria. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s far-right Likud opposition criticises the government for saying anything at all, advising an even more “guarded” approach.
While Putin is one key link between Israel and the Assad regime (alongside the UAE-Bahrain-Egypt axis), Israel leaders are not shy about their own views. As Assad’s troops reconquered the south in 2018 as part of a Trump-Putin supervised deal, Netanyahu declared “We haven’t had a problem with the Assad regime, for 40 years not a single bullet was fired on the Golan Heights.” His Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot stressed that Israel will allow “only” Assad regime forces to occupy the Golan “border,” while his National Security Adviser, Meir Ben Shabat, declared that Israel has no problem with Assad as long as the Iranians leave. Fascistic defence minister Lieberman noted that from Israel’s perspective, “the situation is returning to how it was before the civil war, meaning there is a real address, someone responsible, and central rule,” as it “is also in Assad’s interest” to keep the occupied Golan “border” calm.
In other words, Israel always preferred Assad to prevail over the uprising; the alliance with Putin is not only because Putin’s air defence system in Syria allows Israel to bomb Iranian assets in the country (Russia and Iran both backed Assad’s victory but are now partially rivals over influence and spoils), as widely claimed.
Actually the Israel-Russia alliance precedes direct Russian intervention in Syria. During Israel’s Gaza blitzkrieg in 2014, Putin declared “I support the struggle of Israel,” while Israel refused to join its western allies in condemning the Russian annexation of Crimea, abstaining in the UN and rejecting sanctions.
Therefore, this alliance must be seen in its broader context: Israel’s own territorial aggression, violation of international law via annexation of other countries’ territory, and justification of occupation, aggression and commission of crimes of humanity on the basis that the Palestinian nation is a fiction, all strongly parallel Putin’s actions and ideological justifications. While allied to the US empire, Israel is a small-scale imperialist power in its own right with similar “revisionist” tendencies to Russia. There is a clear understanding of this affinity within the ruling elites of both countries.
The Ukrainian far-right versus the Russian far-right
While the summary above demonstrates that the global far-right has been overwhelmingly pro-Putin and highlights the nonsense in Putin’s claim to want to “de-Nazify” anywhere, that is not to deny the presence of an aggressive far-right, fascist and Nazi sector among the political and military formations associated with Ukrainian nationalism.
On the one hand, the far-right – Svoboda, Right Sector and political representatives of Azov – collectively only received some 2.3 percent of the vote in the last Ukraine elections, so there is an extraordinary amount of demonisation in calling Ukraine some kind of “Nazi” cause, equivalent to the racist dubbing of freedom fighters in the Middle East – in Palestine, Syria and elsewhere – as “jihadis.”
On the other, the far-right – in particular the Azov regiment – has played a somewhat greater role on the military front since 2014, a common impact of military action which tends to empower tough guys and nationalists. The far-right Azov Battalion was formed in May 2014 by members of the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine gang and the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly, which had “engaged in xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideals and physically assaulted migrants, the Roma community and people opposing their views.” It gained a lot of initial support due to the relative disorganisation of official Ukrainian forces when suddenly confronted by the Russian intervention that year.
In November 2014, the government incorporated the Azov Battalion into the National Guard, as a means of controlling, or taming it; the government claims it can no longer act outside the discipline of the armed forces. While perhaps a dubious means, it did separate the armed forces from its political leadership. Ideological cadre including leader Andriy Biletsky had to leave Azov, as they allegedly were no longer able to do far-right work in the Ukrainian military, according to Alexander Ritzmann, a senior adviser at Berlin’s Counter Extremism Project. In 2016 Biletsky founded a far-right political party, National Corps. To get a taste of his views, in 2010 he had asserted that Ukraine’s mission should be to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against Semite-led Untermenschen.” Separated from his former militia, he set up the ‘Azov Circle’ civil movement and a new militia for internal repression, the National Druzhyna, formed in 2017 from veterans of the Azov Battalion. In January 2018, National Druzhyna “carried out pogroms against the Roma community and attacked members of the LGBTQ community,” under the guise of “restoring order.” These actions by the National Corps militia can easily be confused with the Azov regiment of the National Guard, but should be distinguished.
Azov is therefore part of the problem, because its very existence as part of the Ukrainian armed forces is a bigger political problem than its small military reach as such; having a fascist-influenced regiment on the fronts is the best way to drive any ethnic Russians sitting on the fence into the hands of the far-right Russia-owned separatists. The Ukrainian government should indeed be criticised for not disbanding it or more fully severing its connections to the political movement.
However, the vast expansion of military action as a result of full-scale Russian invasion significantly reduces the relative weight of Azov and other fascists, given the “vast popular mobilisation” of millions of Ukrainians – including Russian-speakers – which “has risen up which goes far beyond the state apparatuses” to defend their country’s existence. The Azov regiment is estimated to consist of about 900 fighters; the standing Ukrainian armed forces are 196,000 troops, with another 900,000 reserves!
Regardless, Ukrainian fascists fighting Russia are virtually an anomaly in today’s global fascist climate. The appeals to global far-right solidarity by Ukraine’s Svoboda and Pravy Sector fell on deaf ears in 2014 following Ukraine’s Euromaiden. There was a history of connection between sections of the Russian and Ukrainian far-right before 2014; Svoboda had had observer status in the far-right Alliance of European National Movements (AENM). However, it had already been expelled in 2013, before the Euromaiden, at the initiative of Hungarian Jobbik, which objected to Svoboda’s anti-Hungarian statements.
On the military front, Azov has had a little more success, with several fascist groups that are anomalous among the far-right within their countries developing links. An article in Newsweek, before the invasion, titled ‘Ukraine’s War Draws U.S. Far-Right to Fight Russia’, claimed “neo-Nazi militias have recruited white supremacists from around the world to join their fight against Russia and advance racist ideology.” Yet the only groups mentioned were, in the US, the Nazi Atomwaffen Division (members of whom were deported from Ukraine) and the racist Rise Above Movement, clearly at odds with the strongly pro-Putin hegemony on the US far-right; Germany’s neo-Nazi Third Path (Der Dritte Weg), differentiating itself from the pro-Putin NPD and AfD; and Italy’s fascist CasaPound.
The idiosyncratic fascists of CasaPound may likewise want to distinguish their position from Forza Nuova, Lega Nord and other pro-Putin Italian fascists by supporting Ukraine, but in reality their position is more ambivalent; “some members of CasaPound have voiced their support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, while others support the Kremlin and have even fought on the side of pro-Russian militants in Eastern Ukraine.” CasaPound has participated in conferences with Azov in Lvov; but has also participated in rallies with other Italian fascists where “the crowd displayed posters hailing Putin as well as waving flags of the DNR” [Donetsk Peoples Republic], and organised a public meeting in Rome with Dugin. Explaining CasaPound’s vision of a new Italian-led Mediterranean, Simone Di Stefano, explained that “Outside the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance, Russia is a fundamental strategic ally for us … I very much appreciate the concept of ‘eternal Russia’ expressed in Dugin’s book.”
Impact of the Russian invasion on far-right support for Putin
The unexpected nature, ferocity and wide-ranging nature of Russia’s outright invasion of sovereign Ukraine has caused considerable anxiety for Putin’s far-right allies, from quite different perspectives. Although most remain cautiously supportive, some have expressed concern while others are torn between Russian and Ukrainian fascism.
On the one hand, the far-right parties that have some tendency towards “respectability,” due to participation in elections, have been humiliated by the sheer blatancy of Russia’s aggression. So, for example, French National Rally leader Le Pen, her rival Zemmour, Italian Lega Nord leader Salvini, Czech president Miloš Zeman and Hungarian prime minister Orban all had to condemn the aggression; though just days earlier they were still claiming the idea of invasion was just a beat-up and that Russia did have legitimate “security concerns”.
Condemning blatant aggression did make them partisans of Ukraine or born-again Russia hawks; rather, they tended to adopt the same position as the pro-Putin “left,” ie, of course we condemn the invasion, so let’s push for negotiations, compromise, no sanctions etc. Le Pen refused demands to destroy election pamphlets that prominently display her with Putin, explaining the invasion had only “partly changed” her view of him; Zemmour claimed that while “Putin is the guilty one, those responsible are in NATO which has not stopped expanding.” While Orban fell in with the EU and NATO consensus on the invasion, he stressed his opposition to sanctions or sending arms to Ukraine.
Some still entirely blame NATO with no criticism of Putin. For example, Alice Weidel, MP of the German fascist AfD, blamed the failure of the West to assure that Ukraine remained neutral rather than “continuously pushing the frontiers of NATO’s eastward expansion,” which was an “insult” to Russia’s great status. Dutch fascist Thierry Baudet of the misnamed Forum for Democracy claimed “Russia didn’t have much of a choice.”
On the other extreme, much of the more hard-line far-right have been attracted to Putin because he is seen as a firm and tough leader who is not scared to throw his weight around to defend “his nation”, “western civilisation” and the like. Hence their unanimous support for Putin’s backing of Assad’s dictatorship against “Islamists.” They feel none of the “respectable” pressures of the first group, but Putin’s invasion is a huge risk due to the stakes involved: an outright victory of Imperial Russia would greatly embolden the admiration he receives from global fascism, whereas a humiliating defeat could equally lead to a massive loss of support. With the Russian army bogged down, thousands of conscripts returning in body bags, the inability to yet conquer any major city, and the disastrous impacts of harsh western sanctions, humiliating defeat is not out of the question.
A third issue is the difficulty of choosing between equally attractive fascist partners. Azov appears to have had some success with its active promotional activities; “it is a larger-than-life brand among many extremists. It has welcomed Westerners into its ranks via white-supremacist sites. Azov stickers and patches have been seen around the globe.” This blends with right-wing oriented soldier-of-fortune types and various macho gun lovers and fascists who just want combat experience, including many who admit they are not going to fight for Ukraine, but for a pure white state, with Ukraine a useful springboard; from where they are in the West, it is simply easier to enter Ukraine to fight than to enter from the other side.
Combined with this is fascist uneasiness with two “white” nations at war. This can lend itself either to supporting Putin’s propaganda about Russians and Ukrainians being “one nation” divided by communists and globalists, or to opposing Putin launching aggression against fellow “whites.” Reportedly there has been discussion on far-right social media platforms about the role of “Jews” in driving two “white” nations to war.
To date though this has not led to a massive swing against Putin by the global far-right, rather confusion, division and nervous watching. Deutsche Welle reports that “some of Germany’s right-wing extremists have long had links to Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov militia. Other German neo-Nazis support Russia’s Vladimir Putin. … far-right activists who spent the past two years denouncing the German government and its restrictions to rein in the COVID pandemic, now place their hopes on Russia to champion their values: “When Putin marches through, men will again be men, electricity, and fuel will become cheaper, Islamization will end, and the greens and lefties will all be locked up,” read a chat group message of the ‘Free Thuringians’ extreme-right group. Similarly, the Washington Post reports that “the conflict has exposed a rift among extremists” in Germany, support divided between Russia and Ukraine. “A group called Free Saxony recently told its followers that the conflict was “largely fueled by NATO,” condemning smear campaigns against “friends of Putin.”
Thus, despite various articles with headings like Far right militias in Europe plan to confront Russian forces, concrete evidence is slim. This article reports that “in recent days, militia leaders in France, Finland and Ukraine have posted declarations urging their supporters to join in the fight to defend Ukraine against a Russian invasion” and that “numerous far-right white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups throughout Europe and North America had expressed an outpouring of support for Ukraine, including by seeking to join paramilitary units in battling Russia,” while naming very few.
The most concrete example was from Finland: “Neo-Nazi and white supremacist Telegram users from Finland also encouraged fellow Finns to join the fight alongside Ukrainians … One post said, “the age-old duty of the Finns has been to wage war against the Russians.” But that’s unsurprising – Finland was invaded and occupied by the Russian Empire, and then again by Stalin, leading to Finnish alliance with Nazi Germany against Russia, ie, like Ukraine, there is a history of national conflict with Russia which leads extreme nationalists into conflict with that country.
On the whole, therefore, while the edifice of Putin’s global alliance with fascism has been under strain from opposing pressures, there has been no drastic change to date. A complete Russian victory would almost certainly solidify the alliance and lead to an enormous surge in support for Kremlin-backed and financed fascist and far-right movements globally. In contrast, a humiliating Russian defeat would possibly lead to desertion of a weakened Russia by many fascist groups, and conversely, their long association with Putin, their heralding of him as the great white saviour, may discredit many of these groups and lead them to lose support. This is one more, not unimportant, reason to hope for the defeat of Putin’s bloody gamble in this fascistic far-right version of late 19th century imperialism.
Vitaliy Dudin, head of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organization Sotsyalnyi Rukh (Social Movement), spoke from Cherkasy, Ukraine, on April 6, to Green Left’sFederico Fuentes about the current state of Russia’s invasion, the scale of peoples’ resistance to it and key issues such as Ukraine’s far right, NATO and sending weapons to Ukraine.
It is very difficult to get a real picture of what is happening in Ukraine. Could we start with your assessment of the current state of play six weeks into Putin’s invasion? Do you see any likely prospect for an end to the war in the coming weeks?
Russia’s invasion has created a major threat to the existence of Ukraine as an independent state. Without doubt, we can say that the current war is the most devastating war we have seen since World War II.
Several regions — Chernigiv, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Sumy and Zaporizhia — have been converted into theatres of military actions, with tanks and artillery shelling cities. The Russian army has even attacked cities in western Ukraine, in the Lviv, Rivne and Volyn regions, firing deadly missiles from the air and sea.
About 6000 civilians have been killed. Military actions have taken the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers from both sides. About 5 million people have lost their jobs, mainly because so many workplaces have being bombed. Nearly 10 million people have been forced to flee for safety and hundreds of thousands have lost their homes.
Many towns in the north, east and south are currently, or were until recently, under brutal Russian occupation. But the invaders have not managed to achieve their strategic aims.
They have only occupied one big city — Kherson — and are trying to assault Mariupol, which is undergoing an inhumane blockade and bombing campaign. Almost every building in the city has been damaged, including medical infrastructure.
Russian troops have been halted in the majority of directions, and have suffered significant losses in terms of personnel and vehicles. Ukrainians have shown that they are willing to bravely fight back, even without modern weapons such as anti-aircraft systems, fighter jets and missiles.
That is why I believe that the Russian army lacks the strength to crush the Ukrainian army, and why military actions might be halted, at least in some regions. Putin’s government has a lot of resources, but Ukrainian people are willing and ready to resist.
At the moment, the Ukrainian army is pushing back the invaders in several directions, mostly in the Kyiv and Chernigiv regions. Towns such as Ivankiv, Bucha and Hostomel, which were occupied and plundered in the first weeks of war, have been liberated.
But we shouldn’t underestimate the danger: the Russian invasion has caused vast destruction, their missile attacks continue to cause large-scale destruction and they have reinvigorated the offensive in Donbas.
I think that the war will continue as long as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is in power. Until his demise, for now we can only envisage a partial cease-fire. The destiny of Ukraine depends on the battle for Mariupol.
Could you give us an idea of the kinds of resistance — armed and unarmed — that Ukrainians are engaging in. What role is the left, such as Social Movement, and trade unions playing within the resistance?
Firstly, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have joined the Armed Forces (AF) of Ukraine and the Territorial Defence (TD), which is integrated into the AF. The AF is currently fighting on the frontline with all the weapons available to it, whereas the TD mostly protects cities with guns.
Some Social Movement activists, as well as many trade union members, have joined the TD as volunteers. It is worth mentioning that dozens of anarchists and socialists have formed their own unit within the TD, called the Resistance Committee.
Secondly, a lot of leftists are helping as volunteers to supply the army or satisfy people’s humanitarian needs. One of the most effective initiatives in this regard is Operation Solidarity, which has managed to provide supplies to the militant left. We are also working to meet the needs of trade union members serving in the army.
We have also worked with the nurses’ NGO Be Like Nina and helped them obtain medicines for hospitals that are taking care of wounded soldiers.
Third, we see that a lot of people are protesting the invaders in occupied cities. We aren’t involved in such activity, but we support it. Of course, it is very dangerous because peaceful protests can be shot down by armed Russian soldiers. Such resistance proves that people are against the “liberation” that seeks to turn their cities into grey-zones.
Fourth, we as Social Movement continue to act as a political organisation. We seek to counter Russian propaganda and call on our people to fight for a free and fair Ukraine.
A lot of attention has been given to the Azov battalion and other neo-Nazi forces. Could you tell us about their real level of influence and the role they play? Are you concerned that the far right — in Ukraine and abroad — will come out stronger from this war, particularly the longer it drags on?
I think that the role of the far-right has been overestimated. This has been shown up in the phantasmagorical way that Russia tried to justify its invasion and war crimes.
Before February 24, Azov united about 1000 people who were located in Mariupol and did nothing, because they were integrated into the National Guard of Ukraine. After the Russian invasion, they have been heroised due to their role in the defence of Mariupol, alongside AF units. This is a strange way to dismantle a far-right nationalist agenda, isn’t it?
Far-right militants have committed acts of violence on the streets, but can these actions be in any way compared to the mass killings that have resulted from the bombing and terror campaign carried out during the occupation?
Of course, they could become stronger, but if this occurs it would be the fault of Russia.
Radical nationalists exist in Ukraine, in their specific niche, as in many other countries. Their activities pose a problem for Ukrainian society, but not for Russia or international peace.
The far right in Ukraine was mainly tolerated because of the defence needs of the Ukrainian state. The government turned a blind eye to attacks by radical nationalists while they helped them meet their defence needs.
These radical nationalists have played a role in protecting and serving the oligarchic elite and its regime. But their political influence is very small and they mostly have a very limited role.
For now, the radical nationalists are playing a less important role than in the 2014 Maidan protests, because thousands of ordinary people are taking up arms. The more Ukrainians that have the necessary weapons to defend themselves — and the more the international left supports Ukraine — the less influence the far right will have in Ukraine.
The best way to neutralise the problem of radical nationalism in Ukraine is by weakening Russia’s imperialist intentions. Those who refuse to express solidarity with Ukraine because of the existence of radical nationalists have nothing in common with anti-war principles and ideas.
Much has been made about the conflict in eastern Ukraine prior to the invasion. How has the invasion impacted on this conflict and, more generally, on relations between Ukrainian and Russian speakers in Ukraine?
Putin’s invasion has seriously damaged relations between Russian and Ukrainian people but, at the same time, it has brought about some kind of consolidation in Ukrainian society. After February 24, even people who had some political illusions regarding Russia’s progressive role became convinced enemies of Moscow.
We can say that this common tragedy has united people. People from the western part of Ukraine are willing to help refugees from the east and are showing their support.
At the same time, some people have pursued an exclusionary and extremist agenda, claiming that Russian speaking people are “agents of Putin”. We know that Russian culture will be associated with the culture of the oppressors for a long time (until Putin’s regime is overthrown by Russian citizens). But we are ready to oppose any sort of linguistic or cultural discrimination and hope that solidarity will prevail.
We have also seen that ordinary people in the self-proclaimed republics in Donbas are tired of being used by Moscow in the war against Ukrainians. Of course, most of them consider Russian as their native language, but they do not wish to give up their lives either. Even amid this horrible story, the potential for re-integration remains.
Given where things are at, some believe that the best possible outcome is for Ukraine to negotiate and give up its ambitions to join NATO. How would you respond to those who argue this? More broadly, how do Social Movement view the issue of NATO and its role in this war?
First of all, we think that any intention of joining NATO cannot justify Russian invasion. This is an issue that lies in the field of domestic debate and national sovereignty.
Second, we view NATO as a club of the richest countries and their close allies. For Ukraine, it would be better to develop relations with all countries and ensure real independence.
Third, it is important to realise how the issue of NATO has impacted Ukrainian political life. The perspective of membership was very vague — NATO has never guaranteed membership for Ukraine. So, an “Atlantic orientation” was always more a case of wishful thinking on the part of the government, while for the people it was a reaction to the collective trauma and fear of war in 2014.
NATO could have offered Ukraine membership a long time ago, but instead it promised some kind of cooperation, which only made Ukraine vulnerable. We believe NATO has played the role of a passive spectator in this war. Starting from the end of 2021, they have done nothing to support Ukraine with arms. It seems as if they are more interested in assessing the strength of the Russian army.
Debates have occurred over the issue of sending weapons to Ukraine, with some opposing this saying it would only contribute to the re-militarisation of Europe and empowerment of NATO. Others say it will lead to a scenario like Afghanistan in the 1980s, with Ukrainians being used to obtain the US’ goal of undermining Russia. What is Social Movement’s position on this question?
I see no reason for such a debate. Talk of the risks of re-militarisation in Europe is totally ill-grounded, because there is a complete asymmetry between Ukraine and Russia. The future of demilitarisation lies in stopping Russia’s war machine now.
Issues of security should be of strong concern. Any demilitarisation that ignores the security of the people, their right to defend themselves, and justifies blocking resistance against imperialist aggression is morally wrong.
Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself and the rest of Europe. We need anti-aircraft weapons and jets to protect civilians, because people are dying from missiles and airstrikes.
I want to stress that such weapons will not change the nature of war: they won’t enable Ukraine’s army to eliminate enemies far away but rather enhance their fire-power in close combat.
The more Russian military units that are destroyed, the more stable a peace we will get. It is simple, like during the war against the Third Reich. Russia also justifies its aggression with an ideology of ethno-nationalism. It’s a strong and real threat that needs to be addressed.
It is also important to know that a lot of Ukrainian workers are joining the army. We should arm them, so that they can return to their homes alive and be empowered to continue the class war against greedy oligarchs.
Beyond the question of arms, what kind of solidarity do you believe is required to ensure genuine peace for Ukraine?
We ask that everyone put pressure on their governments to ensure debt cancellation and provide unconditional financial aid for rebuilding Ukraine, as part of a so-called “New Marshall Plan”.
You can also help us by sending any type of aid (including medikits, bulletproof vests, helmets).
But the most specific thing leftists can do is to fundamentally shift their organization’s analysis of the war. They should not tolerate Putin’s imperialism and should fully support the right of Ukrainian people to self-determination.
In a recent statement released by Hugpong ng Pagbabago (HNP or Alliance for Change), the regional party founded by Sara Duterte, daughter of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, activist-scholar Professor Walden Bello was unfoundedly and maliciously labeled as a “narco-politician.”
Prof. Bello is currently running for Vice President under Laban ng Masa (Fight of the Masses), a left-wing electoral coalition of democratic socialist and progressive groups, against Sara Duterte and several other candidates for the May 2022 Philippine National Elections. Last March 20, 2022, in a televised debate, Prof. Bello called out the issue of illicit drug trade in Davao City, dubbing it the “Drug Center ” of Southern Philippines. Prof. Bello questioned why the former aide of Sara Duterte (Davao City’s incumbent Mayor) was exonerated and freed despite clear involvement in a recent drug bust in Davao. Prof. Bello also pointed out that Sara Duterte’s refusal to attend the said debate displayed a glaring lack of public accountability in confronting the said issue, against the backdrop of thousands killed in the Duterte administration’s deadly “war on drugs”.
In retaliation, Prof. Bello was painted by the HNP “as a danger to peace and order and a threat to the anti-illegal drugs campaign of the government”, and accused of supporting the same drug trade he called out by supposedly withholding information from the authorities. This narco-tagging comes on top of Prof. Bello’s declaration as a persona non grata in Davao City (an act that further vilifies him), along with a 10-million peso (USD 192,000) “cyber libel” lawsuit filed by Sara Duterte’s former aide—a criminal case under Philippine laws that might lead to incarceration despite an ongoing trial.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS vehemently condemn these defamatory and dangerous actions against Prof. Bello. While the premise behind HNP’s accusation is both baseless and senseless, we are deeply concerned by the convoluted logic and narrative constructed against Prof. Bello due to their serious implications on his safety and security. Such accusations, in this case, are politically motivated; designed to induce prejudice and shift the burden of proof to those painted as involved in the illicit drug trade. Ultimately, it is to silence those who dare speak truth to power by exposing them not only to a trial by publicity but to the serious threats to life and liberty posed by the “war on drugs” campaign.
Prof. Bello’s reputation, credibility, and contributions as a progressive activist and public intellectual speak for themselves and are inconsistent with the imputations being hurled at him. Prof. Bello has been a key figure in the international human rights movement, being actively engaged in the advancement of democracy and social justice since the Marcos dictatorship. Furthermore, as the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) had described him, Prof. Bello has made a “major contribution to the international case against corporate-driven globalization as a human rights and peace campaigner, academic, environmentalist, and journalist.”
Prof. Bello has assumed different posts at various academic institutions in the Philippines, across Asia and the United States. Prof. Bello obtained his PhD in sociology from Princeton University in 1975 and is currently the International Adjunct Professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton. He has also served in varying positions with several well-respected policy think tanks and non-governmental organizations at the national, regional, and international levels such as Executive Director of Food First, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Board of Focus on the Global South, President of Freedom from Debt Coalition, Member and Former Chair of the Board of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, and Member of the Board of the International Forum on Globalization, the Transnational Institute, and Nautilus Institute, and Member of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights.
Furthermore, as a human rights advocate, Prof. Bello has also been one of the vocal critics of Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Since 2016, he has stood in solidarity with various civil society and human rights groups condemning the campaign as a war against the poor and asserting that such a violent approach that narrowly seeks to eliminate alleged drug users and pushers will not address the root cause of the drug problem.
Narco-tagging or any other malicious form of political labeling against activists, dissenters, and opposing voices MUST NOT BE TOLERATED. If this can be done to Prof. Walden Bello—a globally renowned intellectual, human rights advocate, and former Philippine legislator, what more to ordinary people?
WE CALL ON all organizations, movements, networks and individuals committed to upholding human rights, democracy, justice and peace to condemn this irresponsible and life-threatening narco-tagging and the baseless cyber-libel lawsuit, and express our solidarity and support for Prof. Walden Bello, and all those who seek justice, public accountability and genuine democratic participation.
Please consider signing this Statement of Support for Walden Bello amidst the Narco-tagging incident!
Let us stand together against the muzzling of free speech, and all forms of harassment through political labeling/tagging!
Deadline for organizational (and individual) sign-ons is Friday, 08 April 2022. This statement will be published a day after.
[Disclaimer] This is not an endorsement for Walden Bello’s Vice Presidential bid.
Ukrainian soldiers celebrate at a check point in Bucha, in the outskirts of Kyiv. They had forced the Russian to retreat, but they found evidence of Russian massacres of civilians. (Image: AP)
The Ukrainian resistance has won a tremendous victory in defeating the Russian attempt to take Kyiv, both a military victory and moral victory.[1] But much as we admire them for this, Ukraine is far from winning the war. Russia, as it did from the beginning, is a far larger and richer country and has a much larger military and many more planes, ships, and tanks. In purely military terms, without some dramatic change in the situation, it will be nearly impossible for Ukraine to push the Russian army out of the country—but change is, of course, always possible.
Russian troops have retreated in a disorderly fashion, and they are heading to the east, where they will regroup, have an opportunity to rest, be replenished with new troops, and be resupplied with arms and equipment. They will also be joined by Wagner, the Russian pseudo-private army[2] as well as Libyan and Syrian troops and new recruits from Russia.[3]
The Russian retreat from the town around Kyiv and other regions has revealed not only the massive destruction of aerial and artillery bombardment, but also what observers say are massacres of civilians and evidence of cases of rape of Ukrainian women who were then murdered.[4] The horror and revulsion at information about these atrocities has led to calls for investigations by international organizations from the United Nations to the European Union, as well as by several national political leaders and human rights groups.[5] It has also been accompanied by calls for more sanctions[6] and more military equipment for Ukraine, so that such abuses also become a factor in the war. Despite all of these developments, the Russian war against Ukraine remains at an impasse, the central issues of this essay to which we now turn.
The Russian war against Ukraine, according to military experts and press reports, now appears after just a little more than one month to have reached an impasse. This is contrary to the expectations of many, such as General Mark Milley, who in early February told U.S. legislators that if Russia invaded Ukraine, Kyiv would fall in 72-hours.[7] Ukraine has succeeded in thwarting Russia’s plans.
How is it that Ukraine has been able to stop Russian imperialism’s steamroller?[8] What does it mean that we now have a stalemate and how might such a stalemate end? While the political and economic measures taken by the United States, the European Union, and other nations, especially the economic sanctions on Russia, represent an important factor in the war, we concentrate here on the military issues. We hope to provide here information to allow those in the internationalist left to make their own assessment so that we can take the actions—financial and material aid, building support and building an anti-war movement—to help Ukraine win.
We turn now to Frederick W. Kagan who holds a degree from Yale in Russian and Eastern European Studies as well as in military history, has taught as a professor at the West Point Military Academy, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a neocon with expertise in military matters. Obviously, he also sometimes interpolates political advice to the ruling class with which we do not agree, but he and his colleagues at the Institute for the Study of War have insights into military affairs that are useful to those of us on the left. In an article a couple of weeks ago, Kagan wrote: “The initial Russian campaign to invade and conquer Ukraine is coming to an end without having achieved its objectives – in other words, it is being defeated.” The war he wrote has become a “stalemate” whose outcome is unclear.[9] He continues:
The failure of Russia’s initial campaign nevertheless marks an important shift that has implications for the development and execution of Western military, economic and political strategies. The West must continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to fight, but it must now also significantly expand its aid to help keep Ukraine alive as a country, even under deadlock conditions.
Kagan suggests that we compare Putin’s initial campaign against Ukraine with moments during World War I and with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, which also created a long period of impasse.
The stalemate describes a war situation in which neither side can radically change the front lines, no matter how hard it tries….The First World War embodied the impasse…gave rise to very hard fighting with many losses on both sides. The front lines became generally (but not completely) static, with very little movement. There was always a certain movement of lines….but never enough to materially change the situation.[10]
The impasse often involves heavy and bloody battles, such as Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed but the frontline did not move much. How can such a deadlock be broken? One side can lose its will, one side may gain a technological advantage, or a new ally may enter the war, as in the case of the United States during the First World War, or one side may simply collapse as happened to Russia in 1917. Many things can happen. “This is the most likely scenario we are currently seeing in Ukraine,” writes Kagan.
Our assessment is that the Russian campaign has reached its climax, and that conditions of stalemate are emerging….the Russians do not [have] the ability to bring great effective combat power in a short period of time. The types of mobilizations in which the Russians engage will only generate new combat power in several months at the earliest. Unless something remarkable breaks the impasse we are currently in, the impasse is likely to last for months. Hence our assessment and forecasts.
And of course, we can be wrong. What could happen for this to be the case?[11]
Kagan suggests that changing circumstances could lead to a Russian victory or even a Ukrainian victory, though that seems less likely.
How Is Ukraine Resisting?
Let’s turn to Ukraine and how it is resisting the Russian invasion. First, Ukraine has mobilized its military. “Ukraine has one of Europe’s largest militaries, with 170,000 active-duty troops, 100,000 reservists and territorial defense forces that include at least 100,000 veterans.”[12] Many citizens have since the beginning of the Russian attack volunteered for these units of territorial defense. The Ukrainian government has begun drafting civilian men between 18 and 60 to join the war effort, forbidding them from leaving the country. In addition, the government has called for international volunteers to join the struggle which is both militarily and politically problematic.[13] In addition, some 500,000 Ukrainians,70 to 80% of them men, have returned to the Ukraine,[14] many of them to fight the Russian invasion.
“On the battlefield, the Ukrainian military is conducting a hugely effective and mobile defense, using their knowledge of their home turf to stymie Russian forces on multiple fronts,” said Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Milley said some of the tactics employed by Ukrainian troops included using mobile weapons systems to bedevil the Russians wherever they could. Ukraine’s forces [he said] are “fighting with extraordinary skill and courage against Russian forces.”[15] Using “guerrilla-style tactics” they proved able to hold off much larger and better armed Russian forces for weeks.[16]
A reporter writes, “Ukrainian forces have bogged down Russian units in cities and small towns; street-to-street fighting favors defenders who can use their superior knowledge of the city’s geography to hide and ambush. They attacked isolated and exposed Russian units moving on open roads, which are easy targets. They made repeated raids on poorly protected supply lines in an attempt to deprive the Russians of necessary supplies such as fuel.”[17] Western military officials say, “Hitting and ambushing Russian forces behind the contact lines with fast-moving units, often at night, has proven among its most effective field tactics and is adding to the logistical missteps the Russians still have not been able to overcome, military strategists say. They add that the tactics are also demoralizing Russian troops.”[18]
The Ukrainian army also claims the formation of a unit of Russian deserters fighting in its ranks, the “Freedom Legion of Russia”, with the participation of Belarusian fighters. A statement by a Russian officer was broadcast:
I appeal to the military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, who are currently on the territory of Ukraine. […] I will say only one thing: Russian officers are turning to you. On February 24, we […] entered the territory of independent Ukraine, following the criminal orders of the dictator Putin. I realized that we obviously did not come here with good intentions and that no one was waiting for us here with flowers as if we were liberators, but on the contrary, they cursed us and called us fascists. Military comrades, following the order of the dictator Putin, we have made a terrible mistake. Most of you know this. On February 27 […] my company and I switched to the side of Ukraine in order to really protect the people from the Nazis. […] Join our ranks, become part of the Freedom Legion of Russia. Only together can we save Russia from humiliation and devastation. Only together will we save our people.
We have not been able to verify the existence of this Legion, though there are video interviews and texts on social media, but if true, for us internationalists, it is a masterful lesson in revolutionary politics.[19]
The Russians have had considerable success in taking territory, says Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the CNA security think-tank. But, he adds, these advances were not necessarily the sole result of Russian battlefield supremacy. Ukraine, Kofman explains, made the tactical decision to trade “space for time”: to withdraw strategically rather than fight for every inch of Ukrainian land, fighting the Russians on the territory and at the time of their choosing.
As the fighting continued, the nature of the Ukrainian choice became clearer. Instead of getting into pitched large-scale battles with Russians on open terrain, where Russia’s numerical advantages would prove decisive, the Ukrainians instead decided to engage in a series of smaller-scale clashes[20].
This has not been without its costs, Kofman says. Ukrainians have suffered significant losses, too. Russia’s numerical and technological advantages remain and could yet prove decisive, allowing the Russians to besiege Ukraine’s major cities and starve them into submission.[21] Still, the Ukrainian strategy has been effective and British intelligence reported on March 18 that Russia’s offensive had “largely stopped on all fronts.”[22] According to Mason Clark, an expert on the Russian military, “It is unlikely that Russia’s efforts to replace its losses will allow it to successfully resume major operations around Kiev in the near future.”[23]
What is the problem of the Russian army?
Within a few days, it became clear that Russia had both overestimated its own advantages and underestimated its opponent. Zach Beauchamp of Vox wrote,
Once Putin’s strategy failed in the first few days of fighting, the Russian generals had to craft a new one on the fly. What they found – massive artillery bombardments and attempts to encircle and besiege major Ukrainian cities – is more effective (and brutal). But Russia’s initial failures gave Ukraine crucial time to entrench itself and receive external supplies from NATO forces, which strengthened its defenses.[24]
The Russian Army proved unable to adapt to a new situation, was poor at logistics, unable to move its troops and maintain their supplies; it was bad at coordination of air and land forces; and its communications were poor.[25] Some of these problems, such as fuel supplies, may have been the result of the political corruption rife in Russia. Issues such a fuel procurement existed long before the war.[26]
As a result, Russia’s losses have been quite significant. The Ukrainian Armed Forces, which may exaggerate Russian loses, reported a week ago that 16,400 Russian soldiers had been killed since Feb. 24.The UAF also claims that Russia has lost 575 tanks, 1,640 armored vehicles, 1,131 cars, 293 artillery pieces, 91 multiple rocket launchers, 51 surface-to-air missiles, at least 117 jets, 127 helicopters, 7 boats/ships, 73 fuel tankers, and 56 drones.[27] Other sources such as NATO given similar numbers. Ukrainian and Western sources report that an extraordinary seven Russian generals have been killed.[28]
Reporter Zach Beauchamp of Vox writes:
A recent U.S. intelligence assessment states that Russia “lost more than 10 percent of its initial invasion force due to a combination of factors such as battlefield deaths, injuries, capture, illness, and desertion.” “Once they are below 75 percent, their overall effectiveness is likely to collapse,” writes Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews. If the Russians don’t send well-trained fresh troops very quickly (and they won’t be mercenaries or impressed people on the streets of Crimea), their entire strategy seems useless.”[29]
Russia, with its overwhelming air superiority, should be winning the air war, but according to Beauchamp, so far it is not.[30]
It is not surprising that in these circumstances morale in the Russian Army would be low, especially given that according to military analysts it was already low before the war began. The Russian army is riddled with divisions, between the contract soldiers and the conscripted soldiers and between the various ethnic groups, and there is also widespread corruption and brutality against the conscripts. It is these conditions that account in part for the army’s failures.[31]
As discussed earlier, a stalemate can be ended if one party can find a new ally. Ukraine has been receiving supplies from the liberal capitalist democracies of NATO while Russia, an authoritarian capitalist regime that many leftwing observers characterize as tending toward fascism, has turned to the kindred Chinese government, but, “China has publicly stated that it will not provide financial or military aid to Russia and has promised additional humanitarian aid to Ukraine, but blamed the United States for the war in Ukraine.”[32]
Russia is also attempting to win the war by increasing the size of its military. According to the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate, Russia is “deploying reserves from the central and eastern military districts.” According to the same source, the conscripts in these regions “are equipped with military equipment dating from the 1970s.” The same source indicates that Russian forces have “an urgent need to repair damaged military equipment” and that “the lack of foreign components slows down production in the main Russian military industries.”[33]
Another ISW article notes that, “Russian forces are unlikely to be able to solve their command-and-control problems in the short term. A senior U.S. defense official said on March 21 that Russian forces are increasingly using unsecured communications due to lack of capability on secure networks.”[34] This means that since their radios or telephones aren’t working, Russian soldiers sometimes use their own phones or phones taken from Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, Russia still seems to have failed to resolve its command-and-control problems. CNN cites several sources as saying that it is unclear whether “Russia has appointed a general commander for the invasion of Ukraine” and that “Russian units in different military districts appear to be fighting over resources and not coordinating their operations.”[35]
Russia has lost thousands of troops, but it cannot rely on its reserves or conscripts. Another Institute of War neocon, Mason Clark, writes:
Russian conscription efforts, which Ukrainian intelligence expects to begin on April 1, are unlikely to provide Russian forces around Ukraine with sufficient combat power to restart major offensive operations in the near term. Russia’s pool of available well-trained replacements remains low and new conscripts will require months to reach even a minimum standard of readiness….The Russian military is likely close to exhausting its available reserves of units capable of deploying to Ukraine.[36]
With no new large sources of fighters, Russia may be forced to give up its offensive campaign.
With his troops stalemated in Ukraine and unable to take most of the cities they had surrounded, Putin decided he would bomb the cities. As of March 28, his planes have bombed some 67 towns and cities apparently to punish Ukraine for frustrating his plans and showing the incompetence of his generals, the stupidity of their strategies, their lack of logistic and communication capability, and the poor quality of their equipment. Putin’s air force has intentionally bombed not only military targets, but also many residential areas, destroying schools and hospitals, homes and apartment buildings forcing ten million–25% of the population from their homes, and over 3.5 million have left the country.[37] Thousands of civilians have been killed. Russia has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity for its attack on civilian targets and of using cluster bombs and is now being investigated by the International Criminal Court,[38] though Putin and the Russian Federation (like the United States) don’t recognize its jurisdiction.
So, though the war is at an impasse, the Russian destruction of cities and murder of civilians goes on. We should also note that the Russian Army and the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB – the successor to the KGB) have been kidnapping Ukrainian civilians, and reportedly deporting some of them to Russia. Among the kidnapped are artists,[39] journalists[40], and political figures,[41] as well as children.[42] All of this together, the bombing of cities, the murder and kidnapping of civilians, is what has been called “total war,” an attempt to win the war by completely terrorizing and demoralizing the Ukrainian population. And these are, of course, crimes against humanity.
Still, it is not clear that even inhuman tactics can change the balance in the war.
What is the state of the stalemate at this point? Russia, having destroyed 80 percent of Mariupol, has still not taken control of the city, though it may soon. Frustrated in its ground war Russia has expanded its artillery, missile, and air attacks, bombing several Ukrainian cities. While it says it has turned its forces to the east, to Donbas, it will probably continue to bomb Kyiv. Ukrainian resistance has forced Russia to divert troops and tanks to defend its rear.”[43]
Due largely to the heroism of the Ukrainian resistance, a very smart combination of the twenty-first century version of the “art of war,” modern weaponry that can be used by the so called “techno-guerillas” in the national resistance, and the participation of ordinary people in the war, Ukraine has had an initial success. The stalemate of the Russian army led to a victory in Kyiv. The Russian forces are obliged to withdraw to the East and South of the country. It is a political victory as well as a military one, even if, obviously, the war is not ended and Putin’s Russia can still be victorious.
As we can see, Russian forces are trying to join up to occupy the East of the country nearer Russia. Nevertheless, according to some sources, the Russian forces withdrawn from northeastern Ukraine for “redeployment to eastern Ukraine are heavily damaged.”[44] And if we are to believe the Ukrainian General Staff, the Russian soldiers do not seem very motivated and sometimes disobey orders. Thus, according to this same source, “two tactical groups of battalions” that had very recently been transferred from South Ossetia to Donbass, “refused to fight” and soldiers of the Russian 31st Airborne Brigade reportedly refused the order to resume fighting, “citing excessive losses.”
Every day of resistance is a day of winning, every day is a grain of sand in Putin’s war machine. With each passing day, Putin’s fascistic regime will face increasing internal resistance. With each passing day, we shall see the labor movement rising up against Putin’s war, striking and blocking Russian ships, as the British and Swedish dockers have already been doing. The Ukrainian people in arms and the Russian people under the boot need us internationalists to build a powerful resistance movement in all countries against Russia’s war on Ukraine, a movement that in its own independent role contributes to the defeat of Russian imperialism, the end of the war and the defense of a free and democratic Ukraine.
To make a provisional conclusion, let’s quote Gilbert Achcar:
Supporting Ukraine’s position in negotiations about its own national territory requires a support to its resistance and its right to acquire the weapons that are necessary for its defense from whichever source possesses such weapons and is willing to provide them. Refusing Ukraine’s right to acquire such weapons is basically a call for it to capitulate. In the face of an overwhelmingly armed and most brutal invader, this is actually defeatism on the wrong side, amounting virtually to support for the invader.[45]
[7] Jacqui Heinrich and Adam Sabes, “Gen. Milley says Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if Russia decides to invade Ukraine: sources,” FoxNews, Feb. 5, 2022.
[8] See too my earlier article, Patrick Silberstein, “The Russian army is a paper tiger and the paper is now on fire,” available at: https://www.syllepse.net/syllepse_images/articles/liberte—et-de–mocratie-pour-les-peuples-dukraine-2.pdf
[9] Frederick W. Kagan, “What Stalemate Means in Ukraine and Why It Matters, Mar 22, 2022, Institute of War Press, at:
[13] Anthony Hitchens, “Among Ukraine’s Foreign Fighters,” New York Review of Books, March 26, 2022, at: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2022/03/26/among-ukraines-foreign-fighters/
[34] Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, and Kateryna Stepanenko, ISW, March 22, 2022.
[35] “U.S. Unable to Identify Russian Field Commander in Ukraine,” at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=NXm_3CktFtQ
[36]Mason Clark and George Barros, Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment,” Institute for the Study of War, March 28, 2022, at: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-28.
[37] Keith Collins, Danielle Ivory, Jon Huang, Cierra S. Queen, Lauryn Higgins, Jess Ruderman, Kristin White and Bonnie G. Wong, “Russia’s Attacks on Civilian Targets Have Obliterated Everyday Life in Ukraine,” The New York Time, March 23, 2022, at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/23/world/europe/ukraine-civilian-attacks.html
[39] CGT-Spectacle, “We Demand the Immediate Release of Ukrainian Political Prisoners Abducted by the Russian Army,” New Politics, March 24, 2022, at: https://newpol.org/ukraine-demand-the-immediate-release-of-political-prisoners-abducted-by-the-russian-army/
[41] Matt Murphy and Robert Greenall, “Ukraine War: Civilians abducted as Russia tries to assert control,” BBC News, March 26, 2022, at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60858363
[43] ISW March 23, 2022, at: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
[44] Mason Clark, George Barros, and Karolina Hird, “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment,” Institute for the Study of War, April 2, 2022, at: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-2
[45] Gilbert Achcar. “Coherence and Incoherence about the War in Ukraine,” New Politics, April 4, 2022, at; https://newpol.org/coherence-and-incoherence-about-the-war-in-ukraine/
The Jewish Labor Bund, from its beginning, described itself as a Marxist, revolutionary party, wanting thus to place itself in the camp of those opposed to the reformist tendencies in the world socialist movement. The Bund believed the overthrow of the czarist autocracy and the establishment of a socialist order could not be achieved by the gradual reform of the existing capitalist system and would require a revolution.
In practice, however, the Bund strove unremittingly to make the lives and working conditions of the Jewish workers better. The Bund did not believe in the dictum, “The worse, the better.” The Bund organized to make things better before the revolutionary moment came. In the meantime, it struck, demonstrated, and struggled to improve the lives of the Jewish workers.
In the years leading up to the founding of the Bund in 1897, and in the years following, the conditions of the working class in the Russian Empire, and later in independent Poland, were harsh. The working day was 12 to 14 to even 18 hours a day. The workplaces were squalid, unsanitary, unhealthful. Child labor was prevalent. Abuse and degradation of women, children, and laborers in general was widespread.
The Bund believed that capitalism, as Marx taught, “contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction,” that Socialism was the inevitable next stage in the development of society, a society of the democratic rule by the working class. Socialism would be a system without exploitation, a system of production for social need, and not for profit. Imperialism would come to an end, as would strife between nations, peoples, and classes. It was a beautiful dream, an ideal the Bund found worth fighting for.
But in the meantime, until that moment, the Bund organized tens of thousands of Jewish workers into trade unions, fighting to make their lives better, filling them with hope and pride, leading successful strikes throughout the Pale—strikes among the weavers of Lodz, the brushmakers of Warsaw, the leather workers of Lublin, slaughterers, coachmen, porters, and garment workers all over the Pale. Forging a mass movement, the Bund struggled against the Leninist-Bolshevik line on the one hand, and against what it conceived of as a narrow, chauvinistic, unrealistic, nationalist dream on the other.
In 1898 it was the Bund that helped organized the first Russian Social-Democratic Federation meeting from which Dan, Martov, Lenin, Plekhanov, and all the other founders and shapers of the coming Russian revolution emerged. Bertram Wolfe says the Bund at that time was “The largest and best organized body of workingmen inside the Russian empire.” In 1896, Plekhanov, founder of the Russian social-democratic movement, said, “From a certain point of view, the Jewish workers may be considered the vanguard of the labor army in Russia.”
The Bund joined the Second International in 1900, three years after its founding. It participated in the Zimmerwald Conference in 1915, seeking to end the war. After the war, the Bund did not affiliate with any International until 1930, in that year joining the Labor and Socialist International (LSI), thus once again becoming an active partner in the non-communist, worldwide Socialist movement.
Fellow socialists from the Polish Socialist Party often came to the aid of the Bund to fight off Communist thugs and Polish, fascist, anti-Semitic pogromists.
As social democrats, the Bund, except for a brief illusory moment in 1920-1921, remained in opposition to the antidemocratic, dictatorial rule of Lenin and his followers. Here are the words of a prominent leader of the Bund, Henryk Erlich (who perished in Soviet imprisonment in 1942), speaking on that subject in 1918:
Is the Soviet government a workers’ government? No! It has no right to call itself a workers’ government. It has no right to speak in the name of the Russian working class. Another revered Bundist leader, Vladimir Medem, put it this way: Socialism is the rule—the true rule, not the fictional rule—of the majority, which must in the end take its fate into its own hands. A socialism based on the rule of the minority, however, is absurd . . . [The Bolsheviks] stay in power only because their terror has destroyed and made powerless all their opponents.
And a 1924 convention of the Bund put it still another way:
The difference between us and the Communists lies in the fact that they believe in the rule by the party, and we believe in the rule by the whole working class. We say the working-class government must be answerable to the whole class; the Communists, on the other hand, say that if the working class doesn’t like the Communist Party government, the working class must still accept the will of the government and not the reverse. The chief error of the Communist Party lies in its effort to turn the might of the working class into a dictatorship of the central committee of the party over the proletariat. *
The Bund, on the other hand, was a thoroughly democratic organization. Unlike the Communist-Leninists, it believed in rule from the bottom up, not from the top down. It believed in this democratic vision not only for the inevitable socialist society to come, but for the governance of its own party. Vladimir Medem, Henryk Ehrlich, Victor Alter, Noyekh Portnoy, and the other Bundist leaders could not and did not dictate to the Bund membership. They theorized, propounded, wrote, persuaded—but they could not, did not, dictate. In 1920 Medem, their adored, iconic party leader, failed to persuade a majority at a party convention not to apply to join Lenin’s Comintern. Having failed in this, he left for America, still dedicated to the Bund, but unable to remain in a leadership position until such time, as he put it, that the Bund majority came to its senses and rejected the Leninist dictatorship, remaining true to democratic socialism. A year later, in 1921, it did just that, remaining so from that time on.
While wrangling over these large, political issues, the Bund continued its democratic brand of socialism in its day-to-day struggles to defend and improve the lives of its members by organizing, striking, and demonstrating for a shorter work week, higher pay, and, ultimately, for the dignity of the laboring Jewish masses.Warsaw Bund activist Bernard Goldstein’s memoir is full of examples of this day-to-day “practical socialism” of the Bund.
There is no better source, I believe, for getting to know what the Bund was doing day-to-day to elevate, defend, and help in a practical way the poor working-class Jews of Poland, than to follow the exploits of Bund activist Bernard Goldstein as he led Bund actions at the street level.
In his memoir (Tsvontsig Yor in Varshever Bund: 1919-1939, translated with the title Twenty Years with the Jewish Labor Bund: A Memoir of Interwar Poland), one can witness how the Bund militia fought off anti-Semitic hooligans, nationalistic Polish party thugs, and semi-fascist government police; how it fought off Communist attacks on the Bund’s secular schools, on its union meetings, its cultural events, and on the Bund’s Medem Sanitarium; one can become witness to how the Bund prevented its poor working class members from being evicted from their dark, dank slum dwellings; and more…much more.
Throughout its struggles, the Bund behaved ethically. It did not subscribe to the Communist doctrine that the ends justify the means—any means. No, the Bund believed that means corrupt ends, that the means must reflect the highest ideals of its vision of democratic socialism, that unethical, immoral means lead to unethical, immoral ends. Its leadership, and the Bund itself, was thus incorruptible, never stooping to unethical or immoral acts. This ethos was an integral part of the Bund’s socialism.
This was the socialism of the social-democratic Bund: Opposed to dictatorial Leninism-Stalinism, the Bund, had a democratic vision for a better world and carried on a courageous fight for the dignity and well-being of the Jewish working class.
As they sang, “Ver es shrekt zikh un hot moyre / Zol mit unz in shlakht nit geyn/ Yener iz a shklaf geboyrn/ Un zol blaybm in der heym…” [Whoever is frightened and afraid, Should not go into battle with us/ They were born a slave and should stay home…”]
And as the Bund’s Di Shvue [The Oath–the Bund’s anthem] put it, “Mir shvern tsu kemfm far frayhayt un rekht… /Tsebrekhn. Tsebrekhn di finstere makht/ Oder mit heldnsmut tsu faln in shlakht!” [We swear to fight for freedom and right/ To break, break the dark might/ Or fall as heroes in the fight”]
Socialist, democratic, decent, and unafraid—that is the legacy of the Jewish Labor Bund.
_________
*The above three quotes are taken verbatim from the “Translator’s Preface” to Bernard Goldstein’s memoir, “Twenty Years with the Jewish Labor Bund: A Memoir of Interwar Poland” (Purdue University Press 2016).
Let us imagine that the United States invaded Venezuela, as it contemplated doing for a while under Donald Trump, and that Russia decided to supply the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro with weapons to help it fight the invaders. US troops are meeting a fierce resistance in the barrios and countryside of Venezuela. Negotiations between Washington and Caracas have started in Colombia, while Washington is trying to force the Venezuelan government to capitulate to its diktat.
Unless one believes that Russia is not an imperialist country—which implies that one does not subscribe to a materialist analysis but adheres to a political definition of imperialism according to which only “Western countries” can be imperialist—the situation described above would clearly be one of a just war waged by Venezuela against a U.S. imperialist invasion, against the background of an ongoing conflict between U.S. imperialism and Russian imperialism. Venezuela’s just war would therefore be at the same time a “proxy war” between two imperialist powers, in the same way that most conflicts during the Cold War—such as the Korean war or the Vietnam war—were wars of national liberation as well as “proxy wars” between Washington and Moscow.
What would the right position be for internationalist anti-imperialists? Unless you are an absolute pacifist believing in “turning the other cheek,” you would need to support arms deliveries to the Venezuelan resistance to enable it to defend its population and achieve a position from which it could avoid capitulation and lessen the price to pay in the negotiations. If anyone said, “We support the Venezuelan resistance, but oppose both Russian arms deliveries to the Maduro government and economic pressure on the United States,” this attitude would rightly be regarded as unserious.
For such a position would be proclaiming support to the Venezuelans while depriving them of the means to resist and opposing that economic pressure be put on their aggressor. At best, this would be an utterly inconsistent position. At worst, a hypocritical position disguising an indifference to the fate of the Venezuelans—seen as sacrificial lambs on the altar of anti-imperialism (Russian imperialism in this case)—behind a pretense of wishing them success in their just resistance.
Readers will have understood, of course, that in the above allegory Venezuela stands for Ukraine, and U.S. imperialism for its Russian counterpart. This bring us back to the key distinction between a direct war between imperialist countries in which every side is trying to grab a part of the world, as was most classically the case in the First World War, and an invasion by an imperialist power of a non-imperialist country, where the latter is backed by another imperialist power using it as a proxy in inter-imperialist rivalry.
In the first case, working-class internationalism requires that workers, including workers in uniform (i.e. soldiers), oppose the war on both sides, each opposing their own government’s war, even if that would contribute to its defeat (this is the meaning of “revolutionary defeatism”). In the second case, revolutionary defeatism is required only from workers and soldiers who belong to the aggressor imperialist country, and in a much more active way than indirectly. They are required to sabotage their country’s war machine. Workers of the oppressed nation, on the other hand, have every right and duty to defend their country and families and must be supported by internationalists worldwide.
The attitude consisting in expressing sorrow for the Ukrainians and claiming to care for their fate by supporting negotiations and “peace” in the abstract (which peace?) is rightly seen as hypocritical by Ukrainian socialists. Ukraine’s government has been actively engaged in negotiations with the Russian side for weeks now: these are organized by NATO member country, Turkey, and held on its territory. They are fully supported by most NATO governments, which are eager to see the war come to an end before its global economic consequences turn irreversibly catastrophic. So, it is certainly not like some side is refusing to negotiate. Now, it doesn’t take much expertise in war history to understand that negotiations depend on the balance of forces achieved on the ground. The Chinese and Vietnamese have a long experience in this respect, summarized by the famous Maoist dictum: “Da Da Tan Tan” (Fight, fight, talk, talk).
Supporting Ukraine’s position in negotiations about its own national territory requires a support to its resistance and its right to acquire the weapons that are necessary for its defense from whichever source possesses such weapons and is willing to provide them. Refusing Ukraine’s right to acquire such weapons is basically a call for it to capitulate. In the face of an overwhelmingly armed and most brutal invader, this is actually defeatism on the wrong side, amounting virtually to support for the invader.
The Nguyen family, in the early 1980s in San Jose, Calif., where his parents owned the New Saigon Mini Market. Photograph courtesy Viet Thanh Nguyen
Viet Than Nguyen posted the following statement on his Facebook page on March 18, 2022. We thank him for permission to publish it.
Some people have asked me what I think about the situation in Ukraine. A prominent magazine also asked me. Here’s what I wrote. I wonder if they’ll publish it:
I was born in Viet Nam and made in America.
I fled from Viet Nam as a refugee in 1975 and came to the United States. While I’m grateful for American aid, I wouldn’t have needed American aid if the United States hadn’t invaded Viet Nam in the first place.
As a refugee, I am aware that wars kill more civilians than soldiers, and that wars always produce refugees. I have seen that wars do not end simply because we say they do, and that war’s effects will ripple through bodies, minds, and souls for decades afterwards.
As a refugee, a writer, and a human being, I stand with the people of Ukraine, who are suffering now and will suffer in the future even after the violence is over. I stand against Putin and authoritarians and autocrats and Russia, and I stand against powerful, imperial nations invading or imposing their will on smaller and weaker countries. I believe that all Ukrainian refugees should be accepted everywhere with open borders, open hearts, open arms, and open minds.
Therefore, I also stand against every instance of nations unilaterally invading other countries, which means I oppose my own government and the United States in its many instances of imposing its will on other nations, from Iraq and Afghanistan in very recent memory to many other instances, such as the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, Viet Nam, to name just a few, in addition to the many indigenous nations that the United States currently occupies.
Since I oppose authoritarians and autocrats, I also oppose whenever the United States and its allies support authoritarians and autocrats, in places present and past like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Guatemala, and South Korea, to name a few examples. Since I oppose occupations of all kinds, I am not only opposed to Russia’s attempt to occupy Ukraine, I am opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to the United States’ unwavering support for Israel.
And since I support Ukrainian refugees, I support refugees no matter where they come from, what religion they believe in, what color their skin is, what language they speak, and regardless of whether or not my country will benefit politically, economically, or morally for taking them in.
As a Vietnamese refugee from a communist victory, I am well aware that I was let into the United States because it was advantageous for the United States to show the evils of communism. Likewise, Ukrainian refugees are welcome now because it is in the interest of the West and the United States to demonstrate the evils of Putin.
What about all the other refugees who need our compassion, our empathy, our love, and our action? Will we stand for them?
Soldiers with Kyiv’s 130thTerritorial Defense Battalion practice during urban warfare drills on Dec. 26, 2021 in Kyiv. (Kyiv’s 130th Territorial Defense Brigade)
On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. For several weeks, the war has been raging on Ukrainian territory, the Russian army is intensifying its offensive, several cities are besieged, the humanitarian situation is worsening. In Kiev, the noose is tightening. In order toprotect their city, thousands of Kievans volunteered for territorial defense. Taras Kobzar, one of these volunteers, tells us about his experience of this war and the political context in Ukraine. Taras Kobzar is an anarcho-syndicalist activist, having carried out many social initiatives in Donetsk since 1989, a city he had to flee in 2014 because of the occupation of Donbass by the separatists. He has since lived in Kiev and is currently fighting in territorial defense (civilian units trained to protect the area where they reside under the orders of the national army).
Perrine Poupin (P.P.): How did you experience the beginning of the war, on February 24, 2022?
Taras Kobzar (T.K.): Even though until the last days there was a lot of talk about the possibility of war, I never wanted to believe it. Most ordinary Ukrainians were taken by surprise by the attack by Russian troops. Like other people, I was woken up early in the morning by explosion sounds that sounded in the sky. Around 5 a.m., Russian planes (I later learned that they were drones) attacked Boryspil Airport (the largest civilian airport in Ukraine), located on the outskirts of the city of Kiev. I went out on the balcony and heard exchanges of fire between the air defense of the Ukrainian army and the Russian air force. At first, I wanted to believe that this was just a military provocation to put pressure on Ukraine. And that it would end like this. No one wanted to believe in an all-out and protracted war. Despite warnings from Western intelligence services, especially US and British, and many other signs, no one wanted to believe it. It was not believed that Putin would embark on such an adventure. The war was a great shock to the Ukrainians. I feel unreality. I had a similar experience in Donetsk in 2014.
P.P.: Why do you think Russia is attacking Ukraine now?
T.K.: This war marks the return of the imperial ambitions of the Kremlin and Putin, who considers that his historical mission is to re-establish the borders of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. His aspiration is to make Russia an influential empire again in the world, as in Soviet times, by “recovering” the “Russian lands” that became independent states more than thirty years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Putin was greatly encouraged by the positive reaction of Russian society to the annexation of Crimea. I also think he saw the lack of a strong Western response to its criminal activities as evidence of weakness and as a sign that the West would not be an obstacle to his plans.
Another reason for this war is that Putin has decided, in view of the next Russian presidential election in 2024 (the outcome of which is already decided in advance), to offer the country’s chauvinist majority another spectacular victory, which proves the greatness of Russia, personified by a great president. This is a way to ensure that his popularity rating skyrockets with this electorate. Putin wants to go down in history as the grandfather of the nation, much like Stalin. Ukraine stands in the way of its plans with its independent, pro-Western and anti-Russian attitude.
P.P.: Many analysts draw a parallel with the war in Syria. What do you think?
T.K.: Many Ukrainian cities are already hardly different from Aleppo: they are in whole or in part in ruins. Russian soldiers shoot unscrupulously at civilians and residential neighborhoods. We will never forgive or forget that. Russia’s notorious military machine is facing a people in Ukraine who will fight to the end. The experience gained by the Russians in the wars they have waged in recent years, whether in Syria or elsewhere, will not be enough for them to defeat us. The Russian military machine, despite its terrible reputation, turns out to be a colossus with feet of clay, just like the Russian Empire as a whole. This war will destroy the Putin regime. The Ukrainian army and society have changed a lot since 2014. Just as Ireland was said to be a bird that would devour the liver of the British Empire, Ukraine today is a small but formidable country that will bring about the fall of the last fascist empire in this world.
P.P.: How has the political landscape changed in Ukraine since the Maidan Revolution[1]? What are the different political forces involved? What about the weight of far-right movements?
T.K.: Initially, I was skeptical of the Maidan movement. In the first few weeks, I had the impression that this was just a political masquerade to prepare for the elections in Ukraine. But over time, this uprising clearly emerged as a genuine national revolution, as a profound refoundation of the Ukrainian political and social community from a real self-organization of civil society.
The oppositions between right and left are now fading in the face of the imperative need to face a common problem: to defend people’s lives, the territorial integrity of the country and the future of our young democracy. Today, values such as political freedom, grassroots self-organization, social reforms, the possibility for the people to arm themselves, the alternation of power based on an electoral process, respect for fundamental rights, the self-awareness of the people are at the heart of the struggle waged by all Ukrainians. These principles radically distinguish Ukrainian society united by a common historical destiny from the authoritarian, chauvinist and racist aggressor against whom we are fighting.
Three tendencies with their own historical traditions, stemming from the revolution and civil war of a century ago (1917-1922), are now organically linked in Ukraine: the Makhnovschina, the Petlyurovschina and the Hetmanschina. The Makhnovshchina has its roots in the anarchist tradition of the Ukrainian people, which is embodied today in the self-organization that this people demonstrates, especially through the voluntary movement and territorial defense; the Petlyurovshchina is the army and national republican associations; Hetmanschtchina is state power and the business world. All these tendencies are now united by the same desire to defend the country, by the same concern to see this country develop freely and independently. It is only after the war that we will be able to see what will really happen, but today, we live a unique situation: everyone is talking to each other. It reminds me of republican Spain in 1936. President Zelensky also recalls President Manuel Azaña. So currently, we can in no way speak of competition or opposition between these different political currents.
I serve in a unit created by nationalists, which is supplied by municipal authorities and volunteers, and which is financed by private companies. We give courses on anarchism to combatants and we organize soldiers’ committees that ensure the well-being of combatants and respect for their rights without this being a problem. One can find weapon in hand in the same trench an anarchist, a nationalist, a Euro-optimist, a simple peasant, a worker or a computer scientist without a precise political opinion. All are united by the same desire to protect their people, and the independence and freedom of Ukraine. We are all brothers and sisters, we are the people! This is the universally shared slogan and the only ideology that reigns today. The French Revolution of 1789 created a French nation, the Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-14 and especially the war of 2022 are creating a new nation, the Ukrainian nation. The people woke up. The 600 years of struggle and suffering of the Ukrainian people are coming to an end.
P.P.: Who are the people who are committed? Why and for what purpose? What can we say about nationalism in Ukraine, a subject that fascinates some commentators here in France?
T.K.: It is difficult to say now what will happen after this war. Whatever its outcome, Ukraine has already won. It has won morally, spiritually, politically and socially. Perhaps years of maturation, years of new social battles and class struggle within society await us. Struggles for social transformation, a series of new revolutions. But all this will make it possible for today’s war, a war that is both a war of liberation and a social war. A war between an empire and a republic, between law and contempt for the law, between life and death, between freedom and slavery.
In this context, Ukrainian nationalism is similar to the nationalism of the Irish in their struggle against the British Empire. It is a liberating and creative nationalism. It is a national liberation struggle led by the people. The influence of radical groups is not as great as it seems from the outside. This war poses a threat of genocide to the Ukrainian people. Faced with the danger posed by this annihilation, unity is necessary, even if it will fade over time. But it is the essence of the movement that counts, the momentum of liberation that runs through Ukraine in the face of Russian social racism that denies us the right to exist on principle. Words, banners and historical identification markers are no more than aesthetics or symbols. They have long since ceased to have the meanings that we are trying to attribute to them. The red flag and the words “anti-fascism” have a completely different meaning today than they did a century ago. Even as the Russian authorities reduce Ukrainian cities to rubble (we can speak of Twenty-first century Guernica), they are preparing to organize an “international anti-fascist congress”. Is this irony? A mockery? Or the fulfillment of George Orwell’s brilliant prophecy? Putin is the Hitler of today. There is nothing else to say.
P.P.: Who is President Zelensky? How did he come to power?
T.K.: Zelensky was a very popular comedian and entertainer in Ukraine. His election to the presidency reflected the desire of the people to see the emergence of people who were not associated with the old pre-war political establishment, the desire for a renewal of the political class. Zelensky’s campaign slogan was “peace.” Many Ukrainians had placed their hopes in him because they were tired of the war that had been going on since 2014. Zelensky had promised to find a way out of the current situation in Donbass and to settle the military conflict. In addition, Zelensky’s team was committed to carrying out economic and political reforms that would benefit ordinary people. But these expectations were disappointed, and Zelensky’s government, like Zelensky himself, was severely criticized by different segments of society. It is a tradition in Ukraine to constantly and publicly criticize any authority, rather than sacralize it.
Initially, Zelensky’s party was therefore perceived as the party of peace. But the Minsk agreements imposed by Russia proved impossible to implement, as it would have meant eternal blackmail of war on the part of the Kremlin and Ukraine’s total dependence on Putin’s will. These agreements provided for the forced recognition of separatist “republics” within Ukraine, which would have been entirely dependent on the Kremlin’s decisions. The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 put an end to this ambiguous situation and showed that peace was not an option for Ukrainians. Russia does not want to collaborate with an independent partner country, it wants a vassal, a protectorate, a fully dependent territory. The invasion has once and for all exposed Putin’s true intentions towards Ukraine, intentions that date back well before 2014. While President Zelensky had until then been a politician of disputed authority, hostage to circumstances, since the invasion he has transformed himself into a strong leader who enjoys the support of almost all citizens.
P.P.: What is the situation in Donbass? How do you analyze this one, you who are from the region?
T.K.: Everything that has been happening in Donbas since 2014 is a well-planned operation by the Kremlin. The development of separatist sentiments among the population of these regions that preceded the creation of the so-called “republics” was orchestrated from scratch by the Russian special services. I remember how it all began: I witnessed with my own eyes the theatrical staging of the “popular referendum” on the independence of Donbass and I witnessed the real number of people who participated. Pro-Russian sentiments in Donbas in 2014 were very limited. The situation has changed a lot over time. According to Russian propaganda, the number of supporters of Russia increased sharply, but this was done gradually, in stages. In the spring of 2014, in major cities like Donetsk, pro-Russians were actually Russian citizens transported there by bus (especially from the Rostov region of Russia) to support pro-Russian actions by posing as locals.
At the same time, pro-Ukrainian rallies were held in Donetsk that brought together a very large number of real inhabitants, as shown in many photos and videos, and as I have witnessed. Street fighting between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian protesters broke out in the spring of 2014 that resulted in injuries on the Ukrainian side. Supporters of Russia were actively supplied with weapons from specially established bases in Rostov. Donetsk has been flooded with Russian security agents on the orders of the Kremlin, overseen in particular by Sergey Glazyev, a prominent politician. It was then that the killings of Ukrainian civilian activists and the persecution of Ukrainians began.
The situation then changed dramatically when Russian militant groups began arriving in Donetsk and lobbied to create a separatist militia led by the FSB. In the summer, the situation degenerated into direct hostilities with units of the Ukrainian army and with the use of artillery and aviation. Pro-Russian security services fired mortars into residential areas, accusing the Ukrainian army of being responsible. These provocations made it possible to create the climate desired by the occupiers.
The third step in creating pro-Russian sentiment was the creation of the “Donetsk People’s Republic”, whose territory was isolated from the rest of Ukraine. In this regime of isolation, with the help of the pro-Russian media, public opinion was handed over to the Kremlin’s propaganda. In institutions, universities and educational institutions there began to be an atmosphere of “1937” (when the Stalinist purges provoked the execution and deportation to Soviet labor camps of several million Ukrainians).
Currently, according to the information I have, a significant part of the population of the separatist enclaves is favorable to Ukraine and does not accept the state of affairs in the “republics”. In 2014, Donetsk was a rich and developed region, where the standard of living was much higher than in many other regions in Ukraine, such as those around the cities of Zaporizhzhia or Dnipro. The Communist Party (CPU) had little influence in the Donetsk region. For example, his supporters were not much more numerous than the anarchists during the May 1 demonstrations. It is therefore strange to speak of any nostalgia for the Soviet Union. All these feelings were artificially fabricated as part of the “Russian Spring” project.
P.P.: How has the Ukrainian army evolved since 2014, when it was almost non-existent?
T.K.: In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and started the war in Donbass, the Ukrainian army was indeed very weak and insufficiently mobilized. During Ukraine’s thirty years of independence (1991-2014), the Ukrainian government failed to reform the army, rearm it, create a high civic consciousness among the military, and provide them with effective training in modern warfare. Survival of the former “Soviet” army, the Ukrainian army was more of a decoration than a real armed force. The same goes for the Ukrainian Navy. In addition, Russia was never considered a military threat and there was no plan for a possible military conflict. The military leadership of the Ukrainian army was composed mainly of people with a more bureaucratic than military mind, pro-Russian and from a “Soviet military tradition” that they shared with their Russian “colleagues”. Therefore, there were very few units of the Ukrainian army able to withstand the Russian invasion in 2014. Few Ukrainians were psychologically prepared to shoot at the Russians. As a result, in the early years of the war, the defense effort was mostly supported by formations of Ukrainian volunteers, patriotic-minded citizens and partisan units, poorly equipped and inexperienced in combat.
The eight years of war (2014-2022) have seen this situation change radically. An effective and well-equipped army has been set up, highly motivated and with real combat experience. A territorial defense force capable of being deployed in the event of a general war was established, with community training centers run by volunteers where civilians could receive basic military training. All this made it possible to put up effective resistance to Russian troops during the invasion in February 2022. The army, armed people and civilian volunteers are now operating in a coordinated manner throughout the country, which has helped counter the Kremlin’s blitzkrieg attempt, which hoped to cross the border and quickly seize Ukraine’s most important centers. In addition, the Ukrainian population is much more organized and united than in 2014. The Russian military was not welcomed by anyone, and there was no attempt by the civilian population to form new pro-Russian enclaves.
P.P.: This war is causing a lot of discussion and tension in the Western militant world. How do you position yourself in relation to the NATO vs Russia debate?
T.K.: Among the supporters of a democratic and republican Ukraine, there is no doubt about the desire to integrate Europe and adherence to the values of Western democracy. If one has to choose between the totalitarian regime of Putin’s empire and Western democracy (while remaining lucid about its flaws), the choice in Ukraine is clearly and irrevocably in favor of the West. Faced with the prospect of being crushed by the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions (Russia does not even recognize the existence of Ukrainians as an independent people), the idea of becoming an ally of NATO, the EU and the US does not seem like a terrible thing. The problem of NATO’s eastward expansion (even if it is a reality rather than a scarecrow or chimera as in the Cold War era) is not a problem for Ukraine, but for Russia. It is not acceptable for Russia to solve its geopolitical problems through the genocide of the Ukrainian people. These issues could have been resolved through international negotiations. But now Putin has lost that opportunity and there is no other strategy than the destruction of the Russian aggressor regime. It is obvious to everyone that the Russian militarist machine will not stop in Ukraine. After Ukraine, the war will spread to the Baltic States and even further into Eastern Europe, via Poland. The Kremlin is talking about a space of influence from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, so we should not be under any illusions about what will happen next. It is a repetition of history with Hitler and the great Reich. Ukraine’s desire to ally itself with Western democracies is therefore justified, it is obvious. The war in Ukraine is a matter of survival not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe. If today’s Russia believes it is allowed to react in this way to avoid having NATO on its borders (assuming for a moment that this rhetoric is admissible), then let this Russia go to hell!
A separate question for leftists and anarchists is what strategy to adopt that is in line with their ideological principles. For me, the solution is simple. As long as Hitler exists (personally or collectively), the left must oppose and fight him, and Hitler’s enemies are our allies. After Hitler’s defeat, a new era will open in which local and international class strategies will have their place. This was the case during the Second World War, it should be the same today.
In my opinion, public life in Ukraine since the Maidan revolution has been crossed on all sides by tendencies that I consider rather libertarian. The names, colors and shapes differ from those of traditional anarchist forces, but in their essence, these dynamics are part of the principles of anarchism: electoral activity and alternation of power, direct democracy, self-organization and development of horizontal bonds, universal armament of the people, spontaneity and sense of initiative, ability of grassroots civic groups to control government, free and transparent information within civil society and between citizens and the government. Certainly, many things exist in the embryonic state and coexist with bourgeois institutions and corruption, but everything is evolving and it is in our power to continue what we have started since Maidan.
In Putin’s Russia, there is none of this: it is a police state where the cult of bloodthirsty dictators reigns and where militarism, chauvinism and racism are elevated to the rank of state religion that permeates all strata of society. From this point of view, there is no possible comparison with the presence or influence of radical ultra-right groups in Ukraine: these groups remain a very small minority in the country. Of course, I would prefer our war to be placed under the banner of Nestor Makhno (founder of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army, which, after the October Revolution and until 1921, fought both the counter-revolutionary Tsarist army and the Bolshevik Red Army) and not Stepan Bandera (Ukrainian politician and nationalist ideologue). who collaborated with Nazi Germany), although the figure of Makhno is quite popular here! I would of course like to fight in the name of anarchy rather than the Nation, but these are only symbols and words that do not change the real nature of the movement that runs through Ukraine. In any case, currently, to choose between: “Long live the King” and “Long live the Nation”, I choose without hesitation the Nation!
[1] In February 2014, protesters occupied Maidan Square (“Independence Square”) and obtained the impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych, close to Moscow, after 5 days of clashes with the police.
This article was originally published in Mouvements.
Here are collected various statements from Ukrainian, Russian, and other grassroots organizations on the Russian invasion of Ukraine issued during the first month of the war
Russia’s war against Ukraine has been going on for more than a month. From the beginning of the war, Belarus sided with Russia. Its troops enter Ukraine from our territory, rockets are launched, planes take off. And the more Belarus gets involved in the war, the more its participation in the aggression destroys infrastructure, homes, kills Ukrainian civilians, women, the elderly and children, the more the sanctions of the international community increase against it.
We are beginning to feel their effects. Prices rise, companies close or resort to part-time work, and wage problems begin. The turbulence has already affected strategic companies such as MZKT, oil refineries and Belaruskali. For the first time in many years, Belaruskali was forced to take out a bank loan to pay the salaries of its employees.
But this is just the beginning. The determination of the international community to punish those responsible for the war and the scale of the sanctions are such that in a few years there will not be much left of the country’s modern economy. Belarus has never faced such a challenge in its history.
The country will gradually deteriorate to the technical and technological level of the economy of the middle of the last century. The deterioration will be accompanied by endemic unemployment, extremely low wages, poverty and the miserable existence of the population.
Moreover, Belarus, with Russia as the military aggressor, will have to pay multi-billion dollar reparations to Ukraine for the enormous damage caused by the war. Just as Nazi Germany paid reparations to the Soviet Union after World War II. This is how the factories of MAZ, MTZ, Motovelo and others appeared in Minsk.
Thus, Belarus will pay, by guaranteeing its own future, the adventure of having participated in the war against Ukraine. For years to come, the country has put its existence as an independent and sovereign state at stake, and its population will be on the verge of physical survival.
Few countries in the world have experienced wars in their history as deadly as we have. We must do everything we can to regain a good reputation, so that Belarus is never seen as a military aggressor. And who else will do it? The name of our country, the names of our villages and cities must not embody the threat and danger to the people of neighboring Ukraine, fraternal for us. Must not embody death.
I, the President of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions, Alexander Yarashuk, am addressing you. Russia’s war in Ukraine is not our war. We can stop it, we must stop it! The absolute majority of Belarusians, 97%, do not want Belarus to participate in the war in Ukraine! Our descendants will not forgive us for silence at the most critical moment in our history! Don’t be afraid of anything or anyone! It’s hard to imagine anything worse than what is happening to us today. Never and nowhere in the world has the demand to end the war been a crime! And never and nowhere in the world has there been a nobler cause than to oppose war, against the murder of innocent people, women, the elderly and children!
Demand in your workplaces, in the name of the work collectives: no to the war, no to the participation of Belarus in it! Demand a ban on sending Belarusian troops to Ukraine, demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from our country! Let’s do it now, let’s do it today! Because tomorrow it will be late! Because tomorrow for Belarusians may never come!
In the postwar period, the German philosopher and critic Theodor Adorno famously condemned directly political artworks, stating “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Today we might well ask whether it’s possible for onlookers to create memes about the war in Ukraine. Too often even our most sincere statements of solidarity expressed on social media seem crass, not unlike gestures made by outlets, such as the renaming of the cocktail “Moscow Mule” to “Kyiv Mule.” What can Adorno teach us about representations of warfare in the social media age?
Even the familiar opinionated posts and trite gestures we have come to expect, flags replacing profile pics, or declarations that we are all, for example, “Parisienne” (as seen following the Paris attacks of 2015), were curiously and thankfully absent in the immediate period following Putin’s reckless orders. It felt as if the vast online commentariat concurred with the sentiment behind Adorno’s famed dictum that it is impossible to make art about the horrors of war, argued in his 1949 essay Culture Critique and Society. Yet the silence was short lived as people from varied national and political backgrounds soon mobilized to express their opposition to the Russian invasion. This was to be expected in countries where political freedom permits expressive demonstrations of opinion. However, in juxtaposition with rolling news footage of civilians fleeing Ukraine and cities being bombed out, this kind of Facebook posting has demonstrated the vast gulf between those suffering the direct effects of the war (not only Ukrainians but also Russian protestors) and online spectators viewing from their safe homes (or, in the age of the internet, their offices, or their commute or while shopping).
This is not a simple case of stating that no one has a right to speak for disaffected populations or minorities (though that case could arguably be made). Rather, Adorno’s idea is that artistic representations or commentaries on warfare are a form of entertainment from which the commentator and audience can “elicit enjoyment.” Anyone distant from the war (i.e. not involved in it or affected by it directly) would for Adorno be better off not commenting, even though geographical distance is not his target (and that—as they will comment anyhow— their comment will not achieve what they intend it to). Above all, the ability for people to elicit enjoyment from representations of conflict goes to show how far capitalism has come in creating a society where empathy is basically not possible. As Adorno wrote on his essay of 1962, Commitment, with characteristic polemic style: “The so-called artistic representation of the sheer physical pain of people beaten to the ground by rifle-butts contains, however remotely, the power to elicit enjoyment out of it.”
For Adorno, portrayal of conflict risks a repetition of the sadism of violent acts, not because we are all inherently sadistic (whether this be the case or not) but because the world of culture is linked to the industrial and military complex that fuels war. As such, the act of social media posting and viewing other people’s feeds can be seen as a form of participatory entertainment that feeds the profits of social media giants.
What does this tell us now? We certainly ought not condemn Russian, Ukrainian, and Eastern European artists who find themselves on the front line of a war and wish to draw attention to its horrors so they might convince the west to send more aid. This might rightfully continue with us onlookers amplifying their messages by sharing them so our governments may do more to head off Putin’s imperialist gambit. What Adorno does tell us though is that many of our communicative efforts are too embroiled with capitalism to be able to stand outside it and critique it. This could not be truer of the age of social media, when our every post feeds into the profits of the data capitalist giants. And aside from fueling the capitalist machine, our knee jerk offerings do little but perpetuate a tendency to rigidly identify and categorize the world around us into over simplified statements which feed conflict.
Right now the Left is split on social media between those who outright condemn Putin, those who stop short of condemnation, qualify it on the basis that the US and the UK invade Iraq and Afghanistan, or support it outright. Such an identificatory split has people posting on social media in rage, creating more data, whilst doing nothing material to support the people of Ukraine and Russia. Aside from being a staunch defense of artistic abstraction (something for which we can have little use in the present moment), Adorno’s reticence to support outwardly political art might at least give us pause for reflection, long enough to ask whether what we have to say might be better than silence.
The following statement was adopted by dozens of European organizations in March as the basis for taking collective actions in support of the Ukrainian people as they resist the Russian invasion and occupation of their country.
Basic consensus
We, collectives of social movements, trade unions, organizations and parties, from Eastern and Western Europe, oppose war and all neocolonialism in the world, want to build a network from below, independent of any government FOR:
The defense of an independent and democratic Ukraine!
The immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory. The end of the nuclear threat posed by the alerting of Russian nuclear weapons and the bombing of Ukrainian power plants!
Support for the resistance (armed and unarmed) of the Ukrainian people in its diversity, in defense of its right to self-determination
Cancellation of Ukraine’s foreign debt!
The non-discriminatory reception of all refugees – from Ukraine and elsewhere!
Support for the anti-war and democratic movement in Russia and the guarantee of political refugee status for opponents of Putin and for Russian soldiers who desert!
Seizure of the assets of Russian government members, senior officials and oligarchs in Europe and around the world; and financial and economic sanctions – protecting the disadvantaged from their effects.
Beyond that, we are also fighting, together with like-minded currents in Ukraine and Russia:
For global nuclear disarmament. Against military escalation and the militarization of minds.
For the dismantling of military blocs
To ensure that any aid to Ukraine is not subject to IMF or EU austerity conditions.
Against productivism, militarism and imperialist competition for power and profit that destroy our environment and our social and democratic rights.
At the end of the First World War, the ILO was founded on a universal statement: “A universal and lasting peace can only be based on social justice.” Today, we must add environmental justice and the rule of law: we fight for peace and equality, democratic freedoms, social and climate justice, through cooperation and solidarity between peoples.
Recently, the Ukrainian National Defense and Security Council decided for the temporary suspension of the activities of a number of Ukrainian political parties. The list includes both major opposition parties and less known ones that use words ‘progressive,’ ‘left,’ or ‘socialist’ in their names. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky accused them of “connections with Russia,” but did not back the claim with any proper legal reasoning.
We clearly realize that at least some members of these parties, and particularly their leadership, have
downplayed the danger of Russian chauvinist ambitions and bordered on justifying the aggression if not directly worked with the Kremlin;
misdirected popular frustration caused by neoliberal policies of the government into fighting the caricature image of “the West” destroying “Slavic civilization”;
spread xenophobia, antisemitism, homophobia and hatred.
Thus, even those using, but in fact hijacking, left-wing phraseology in reality just served the oligarchic consensus.
Nevertheless, any possible cooperation of the aforementioned organizations, as well as of their individual members, with Russian imperialists has to be investigated, and then tried by a court. Concrete persons involved in sabotage of the popular resistance have to bear individual responsibility for their actions. We recognize the importance and symbolism of democratic freedoms and believe that indiscriminate party bans have no place in today’s struggle.
We have already seen how the government tried to abuse the situation of war to attack the labor rights of Ukrainian workers; now its actions are aimed at limiting political and civil freedoms. We cannot support this.
Moreover, we would like to warn against any attempts to stigmatize left and social movements in general by the absurd linking of the progressive agenda to the Kremlin, which actually embodies everything opposite to it. Left and union activists today are fighting the aggressor as members of the military force and territorial defense, as volunteers involved in provision of equipment, food and medical supplies, evacuation and accommodation of the refugees and IDPs [internally displaced persons], as groups building up international solidarity and demanding the write off of the foreign debt, the seizure of Russian state assets, and an end to the toleration of offshoring.
We can only appreciate the numerous left movements around the world that already voiced their support, recognized Ukraine’s right to self-defense, and keep pressuring their governments to take concrete steps.
The people of Ukraine, not the capitalists who always used them to extract value and store it abroad, are bearing immense hardships today, and they deserve a fairer tomorrow. Socialism is the best way to bring more justice in our society and pursue common aims. That is what we, Sotsialnyi Rukh, stand for!
The Ukrainian government announces the abduction in the occupied city of Kherson of the director of the regional theater and director Oleksandr Kniga by the Russian army. Putin is implementing his unfortunately usual policy of terror and intimidation of the populations in the occupied territories, especially those who can speak out against the occupation.
With the entire profession, the CGT Theater, Movie, Audiovisual, and Cultural Workers Union demands the immediate release of the director and all the detainees, and asks the Minister of Culture and the Quai d’Orsay to do everything possible to do so.
We continue our calls to demonstrate against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for peace.
✓Call for donations “SOLIDARITÉ UKRAINE” French trade union organizations call for solidarity: – either by transfer (make sure to mention – SOLIDARITY UKRAINE) IBAN FR76 4255 9100 0008 0035 9721 126 – or by check to: L’AVENIR SOCIAL 263, rue de Paris – box 419 – 93514 MONTREUIL cedex A receipt will be sent to each individual donor (66% of the amount of donations is tax deductible)
✓ Call for the support of our colleagues forced into exile: CGT press release “Unconditional welcome for those fleeing the violence of armed conflicts,” Paris, 24/03/2022.
“Anti-Fascist Resistance” logo, targeting the “Z” symbol of the Russian military
Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) was a globally renowned White-Russian prose poet, journalist, ethicist, and Christian-anarchist critic. Though he fought as a cadet in the Eastern Caucasus and became an artillery officer in the Imperial Russian army as a young man, he would resign as a first lieutenant in 1856, after two years.3 Rather than affirm Tsarist colonialism or jingoist pan-Slavist ideologies, as did the celebrated novelist Fëdor Dostoevsky (1821-1881), Lev Nikolaevich from the start of his writing career expressed critical views of imperial violence and dispossession. This can be gleaned from “The Raid” (1853), the “Sevastopol Sketches” (1855), The Cossacks (1863), and War and Peace (1869). In its dual rejection of the exaltation of violence and the worship of power, the writer’s humanist war correspondence is motivated by the utopian hope that lending a voice to those who suffer the most in armed conflict might “drastically reduce its incidence” in the future.4
Written as eyewitness accounts of the siege of the Russian naval base by British, French, and Turkish forces during the Crimean War (1853-1856), the “Sevastopol Sketches” portray such scenes of devastation that “shake [one] to the roots of [one’s] being.”5 As such, Count Tolstoy’s purpose in these reports runs parallel to Siddhartha Gautama Buddha’s teaching from two and a half millennia ago: that awakening begins through acknowledgment of the traumatic reality.6 Establishing himself in these “Sketches” as a “seer of the flesh,” both living and dead, who interweaves poetry and truth, Tolstoy contests those liberal and radical thinkers who focus on the “achievements and ferocious power of the state” while ignoring the “horrific consequences of this power for millions.”7 He repudiates the “galactic” view of existence that would regard Earth from above, and see humanity as a tool to manipulate, manage, and destroy.8 The artist parts company with those who would portray combat as romantic by communicating the straightforward ideas that militarism is based on male sadism and vanity, and that war constitutes murder and ultraviolence.9
No surprise, then, that Tolstoy remains excommunicated within Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Indeed, just last month, the megalomaniacal Russian president ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Employing projection and pretext, Putin announced a “special military operation” to “demilitarize and de-Nazify” the country. In reality, this former KGB spy and director of the post-Soviet FSB, embittered by the collapse of the Soviet Union, is overseeing a genocidal assault on the Ukrainian people. Brutal violence has long been Putin’s favored approach: the security analyst Anna Borshchevskaya discusses the possibility that he ordered the FSB to bomb apartment buildings in three Russian cities in September 1999. Whether or not he was responsible, Putin blamed these acts of terror on Chechen rebels, while exploiting them both to launch a Second Chechen War (1999-2009) and to secure the presidency in 2000.10 Since then, the Russian despot has led “anti-humanitarian interventions” in Georgia, Syria, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Now, nearly a month into his ill-fated foray into Ukraine, the Russian leader mimics his ally Donald Trump by hosting a self-congratulatory fascist rally.
In this essay, we will examine Tolstoy’s “Sevastopol Sketches,” emphasizing its tragic realism, anti-militarism, and anti-authoritarianism. Afterward, in the spirit of the Russian artist, we will meditate on parallel war crimes that have been carried out in Syria over the past decade-plus by forces loyal to Putin and Bashar al-Assad. In this sense, we agree with free Syrians and Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, who alike see in Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria a clear precedent for the current offensive against Ukraine. Ominously, a spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Defense has likened the Ukrainian resistance to “international terrorists in Syria.” So far, it is clear that the Russian military is using the same atrocious tactics in Ukraine as in Syria, including the direct targeting of hospitals, journalists, bakeries, and residential areas.11 While millions of Ukrainians flee the country or shelter in basements, just as Syrians do and did, the Assad regime is recruiting thousands of mercenaries to fight in Ukraine, now that Russia’s initial blitzkrieg has failed.
Mural for Ukraine painted by Aziz Al-Asmar in Idlib, Syria, February 2022 (Middle East Eye/Bilal al-Hammoud)
The Sevastopol Sketches
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy’s “Sevastopol Sketches” are comprised of three short first-hand reports on the besiegement and fall of the main Russian-occupied port city of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, between October 1854 and September 1855. These “Sketches” constitute unsettlingly realistic dispatches from the front lines that might have their equivalent today in emergency news reports from Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, or Ukraine which depict suffering with compassion, demanding immediate remedial action.12 Written as “anti-war” correspondence, the “Sketches” are the product of Tolstoy’s commission as an artillery officer in 1854, and of his experiences in the embattled port-city following his transfer there as a second lieutenant the following year.13 Regardless of his humanistic bent, though, Tolstoy erases the important role played by Muslim Crimean Tatars in the city’s defense, in keeping with his silence over their colonial dispossession, which began with Tsarina Catherine II’s annexation of Crimea in 1783.14 At present, Crimean Tatars are courageously taking up arms against Putin’s “special military operation.”
Published in the literary journal The Contemporary that had been co-founded by Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837), Russia’s national poet, the same “Sketches” which ironically brought the young Tolstoy celebrity were the product of his autonomous mental labor, following the moribund Tsar Nicholas I’s denial of the lieutenant’s proposal to launch a weekly forces newspaper.15 Significantly, the writer employs narrative realism in the “Sevastopol Sketches” not to mystify or endorse inter-state violence, but rather to defamiliarize or ‘estrange’ the suffering and exploitation demanded by war and militarism before his audience, who accordingly become spectators once-removed from the scene of desolation. In the “Sketches” and subsequently in The Cossacks and War and Peace, the artist at once defamiliarizes, reviles, and deprovincializes warmongering and statist ideologies. He does so by repudiating the resigned acceptance of such destructiveness while providing “intimacy at a distance.” In this way, he seeks to restore the humanity of war’s victims, and to encourage cosmopolitan-internationalist sensibilities in his readers.16
In 1853, Nicholas I declared war on the Ottoman Empire, seeking to take control of its European territories in the Balkans and “liberate” its Orthodox Christian subjects. In response, the British and French allied with the Turks to invade the Crimean Peninsula and assault Sevastopol. Their aim was to capture the Russian naval base, the principal port for the Tsar’s Black Sea fleet, toward the end of neutralizing regional Russian expansionism.17 Subjected, then, to a merciless assault by the French and their allies, the soldiers, sailors, and civilian populace of the port-city experience “a total absence of the human and of any prospect of salvation.” Tolstoy observes that, in Sevastopol, “everywhere [one] perceive[s] the unpleasant signs of a military encampment.” Like Virgil in Dante’s Inferno (1320), the writer takes his readers on a tour of a world comprised of the fortress and its eight bastions. The story begins in December 1854 in the Assembly of Nobles, which has been transformed into a makeshift field hospital.18
Showing compassion for the war-wounded in this effective slaughterhouse, the onlooking narrator demonstrates Tolstoy’s commitment to the politics of pity, defined by scholar Lilie Chouliaraki as the “symbolic mechanism[s…] by means of which various media […] construe the spectator-sufferer relationship via emotions of empathy and enunciation or aesthetic contemplation.” Centering the agora—or the realm of reflection and argument—and the theater—or the realm of fellow-feeling, identification, and agency—in these “Sketches,” Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy seeks to convince readers not only of the immorality of warfare, but also of the urgent need to overcome their status as voyeuristic spectators who may just be “sit[ting] back and enjoy[ing] the high-adrenaline spectacle.” Implicitly, he enjoins audiences to channel their emotional reactions into protesting against militarism and social hierarchy.19
Approaching a young wounded warrior, Tolstoy’s guide asks him about his injuries. In response, the youth betrays the self-surrender expected of a soldier (or worker): that “[t]he main thing […] is not to spend too much time thinking about it.” The narrator witnesses a sailor whose chest is “blown away” by a mortar contritely apologizing to his comrades as he perishes. Likewise, surgeons “with pale, gloomy physiognomies” are shown operating effective (dis)assembly lines to amputate the limbs of injured soldiers. One of these surgeons, performing triage, records over five-hundred thirty admissions to the field hospital in a single day in May 1855.20 Besides physicians, 163 Russian female nurses, supervised by the proto-feminist surgeon Nikolai Pirogov (1810-1881), served in front-line field hospitals in Crimea, where they courageously attended to the injured and dying while exposed to artillery barrages and typhus.21 From the other side of the line of control, British nurse Florence Nightingale’s (1820-1910) statistical findings on the causes of death in Allied hospitals showed that “far more men died of disease, infection, and exposure than in battle.”22
Overwhelmed by agony, the factitious Russian Prince Galtsin cannot stand more than a moment in Tolstoy’s bleak Assembly Hall. Seemingly everywhere, intermixed with the mire, can be found “shell splinters, unexploded bombs, cannonballs and camp remains,” and one is assaulted by a ceaseless hail of bullets and shells. For this reason, war is depicted not as “a beautiful, orderly and gleaming foundation,” as the authorities would prefer, but rather, according to the politics of pity, “in its authentic expression—as blood, suffering, and death.”23
Franz A. Rombaud, detail of Sevastopol Panorama (1904)
Estimates suggest that the casualties incurred during the final attack on Sevastopol reached twenty-four thousand on both sides, or about one-tenth of the total from all causes over the course of the siege.24 In contemplating the mass-casualties experienced during this time, Tolstoy’s narrator wonders whether it would not have been more just for two representatives of the warring sides to have dueled, and the conflict’s outcome to have been based on that result. For war as it is practiced is “madness.”25 Through these “quixotic musings” about duels as an alternative to full-blown wars, Tolstoy “dispute[s] the rationality and morality of violence in general.” He does so by implicitly disavowing his landowning class and identifying with anti-militarist values expressed by Russian peasants. In reality, many muzhiki (male peasants) believed that World War I should have been resolved through a village brawl, rather than through mass-slaughter.26 These peasants had an important point: the suffering and death of even one soldier in war “symbolizes [the] ‘universal’ human state of existence” of objectification and brutalization. In other words, to humanize the victims of war, we must treat every casualty as a person.27
In Tolstoy’s Sevastopol, Prince Galtsin and the Polish Lieutenant Nieprzysiecki harass wounded soldiers for retreating, whereas the enthusiastic, newly arrived volunteer Lieutenant Kozeltsov, anticipating “the laurels of immoral glory,” confronts demoralization and horror upon learning the reality of the situation. Alongside soldiers, civilians suffer, too. A sailor’s widow and her ten-year old daughter remark on the sight of a French artillery barrage at night. The girl cries, “Look at the stars, the stars are falling!” while her mother laments the impending destruction of their home, cursing the “devil” for “blazing away” and bringing “horrible things.” The adjutant Kalugin adds that “sometimes [it’s] impossible to tell which are shells and which are stars!”28
Tolstoy further defamiliarizes the scene by focusing on the responses of a ten-year old boy to all this devastation, contrasting his instinctual horror, based on natural goodness (in accordance with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas), against the statist-militarist normalization of such destructiveness. The scholar Liza Knapp hypothesizes that
Tolstoyan pacifism has its seeds here, where Tolstoy makes the boy, and the reader, pay attention to the corpses, to the sight, smell, and feel of them, and where Tolstoy points to the basic contradiction between the brotherly love that the soldiers at Sevastopol profess […] and the killing that they practice.29
Echoing this point, officer Kalugin thinks to himself that he should amount to something more than the “cannon fodder” to which soldiers are reduced in combat. In this moment, he anticipates how Prince Andrei Bolkonsky similarly laments the reduction of young men to pawns in War and Peace.30 At the end of his account from May 1855, Tolstoy juxtaposes the dystopian sight of hundreds of corpses, or “the bodies of men who two hours earlier had been filled with all manner of hopes and desires,” and the thousands injured between the Allied and Russian positions with the beauty of the stars, the “thundering” sea, and the “mighty, resplendent” sun, as though to decry the betrayal and denial of “joy, love and happiness” owing to war. After all, such tense dynamics are not limited to the nineteenth century. As we know from history and the present, when talks among states fail, “cannons start firing, and people, with all their aspirations and potential, begin to die in droves.”31
Franz A. Rombaud, detail of Sevastopol Panorama (1904)
Anti-War Meditations, from Crimea to Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine
Tolstoy’s disturbing albeit realistic presentation of the horrors of warfare in the “Sevastopol Sketches” certainly has its echoes today. Though the “Sketches” were published more than a century and a half ago, the problems of war, imperialism, dehumanization, and ultraviolence continue in our own day, considering that the State and capitalism persist as the dominant global forms of social organization—as in the nineteenth century. At the same time, whereas the “Sketches” illustrate an inter-imperialist conflict involving the British, French, Ottoman, and Russian Empires, Putin’s ongoing assault on Ukraine threatens an independent nation with reconquest by the former imperial power. Seen from an Enlightenment rationalist perspective, the Crimean War, the Syrian counter-revolution, and the Russo-Ukrainian War are senseless, ruthless, and reactionary. They speak to our predicament of being “stuck” within ossified relations of domination. It is indeed telling that so many Russian soldiers who have surrendered to the Ukrainian military since the offensive began should say they don’t know why they had been obeying orders in this fratricidal conflict. Likewise, one of Tolstoy’s alter egos, Prince Andrei, admits in War and Peace not to know why he is fighting, either.32
Furthermore, the gloomy surgeons amputating Russian soldiers en masse in Sevastopol eerily bring to mind the thousands of Palestinian protesters, mostly youth, whom the Israeli military injured and killed during the “Great Return March” demonstrations that began in March 2018. As of late 2019, at least six hundred of these protesters who were shot in the legs had developed osteomyelitis, a bone infection that can threaten the viability of limbs. Over three hundred such protesters have died in Gaza. It is also striking to consider how closely the comments of the sailor’s widow and her ten-year old daughter in the “Sketches” echo the desperate realities confronted by millions of courageous Syrians who have risen up against Bashar al-Assad’s fascist regime—only for this regime and its Russian and Iranian backers to have murdered hundreds of thousands, and possibly over a million, of people in response.
If Terry Eagleton is right that “[t]he traumatic truth of human history is a mutilated body,” and if John P. Clark is right that meditation on a corpse is “one of the most ancient and most useful meditative practices,” then perhaps meditation on the vast war casualties from the Syrian counter-revolution can be similarly useful, according to a tragic-humanist framework, toward the end of alleviating future episodes of suffering and exclusion—as the Ukraine invasion has starkly shown.33
As the members of The Lancet-American University of Beirut Commission on Syria note, “[t]he conflict in Syria has caused one of the largest humanitarian crises since World War 2.”34 In reality, in a 2021 report, the UN Commission of Inquiry found evidence of “the most heinous of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law perpetrated against the civilian population” in the country, including genocide. Plus, in an unprecedented March 2021 report on violations of international law perpetrated by the Russian military since its September 2015 intervention in Syria, Russian human-rights groups lament how State-controlled media have blocked out the vast human costs of the war—just as Putin has now prohibited that the war on Ukraine be described as anything other than a “special military operation.” To contest State brutality, these groups seek to “present the perspective of ordinary people who experienced bombing and hunger and who saw their relatives die.”
Along similar lines, journalist Rania Abouzeid reports on how the aunts of the eleven-year old girl Ruha, living in Saraqeb, Idlib province, suffered mass-bombardment in 2013 by the Assad regime’s air force, which resembled seemingly ceaseless “raining fire.” In like manner, scholar Yasser Munif describes the grim panoply of technologies employed by the regime to suppress the Syrian Revolution: “starvation, torture, siege, indiscriminate bombing, chemical attacks, massacres, assassinations, etc…”35 Anthropologist Charlotte al-Khalili highlights the “vast inequality” in the balance of forces:
peaceful and later lightly-armed revolutionaries, on the one hand, versus a heavily-armed regime on the other, supported by its Russian and Iranian allies, using a wide range of weapons up to and including barrel bombs and chemical weapons to exterminate the people living in revolutionary bastions and liberated areas.
The anxiety expressed by the young girl in Sevastopol about the shells resembling stars can be considered to echo the fears of millions of displaced Syrian civilians residing in Idlib, who have been subjected to an indiscriminate campaign of mass-aerial and artillery bombardment by the Assad regime and its allies for years. Equally, they bring to mind the millions of city-dwelling Ukrainians, including children, currently seeking refuge in metro stations, basements, and other bomb shelters targeted by the Russian military. In Idlib, siege tactics have included the use of white phosphorus to set alight crops, destroy agricultural production, worsen malnutrition and starvation, and ultimately force the civilian population into submission. In parallel, Putin’s forces are employing the same cluster munitions and ballistic missiles in Ukraine that they have used in Syria.
Remarkably, Waad al-Kateab and Edward Watts’s 2019 documentary film For Samachronicles the Syrian Revolution and the retaliatory siege of East Aleppo by the Assad-regime axis. Al-Kateab’s documentation of the interplay of joy over the life of her daughter with the plague of war can be seen from the feature’s very first scene, filmed in the Al-Quds Hospital, which was founded in November 2012 by her husband, Dr. Hamza al-Kateab. For Sama begins with a lovely dialogue between the titular infant and her mother which conveys interrelationality—only to be interrupted by an artillery barrage that provokes the flight of al-Kateab with her child through the basement of the hospital. The infernal aspects of this scene, allegorical and real at once, are but the opening salvo in Waad’s illuminating account that bears witness to the devastation perpetrated by Assad and Putin against Syrian revolutionaries. Interviewed on Democracy Now in March 2022 about echoes of Syria in Ukraine, al-Kateab conveyed shock over Putin’s belligerence: “What [is] the world waiting for? What more [do] you need to see? How many hospitals should be more bombed?”
Syrian director Waad al-Kateab interviewed on Democracy Now, March 17, 2022
Assad and Putin’s Counter-Revolutionary Aggression
Over the past decade-plus, the combined forces of the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian States and affiliated paramilitaries have committed heinous crimes in pursuit of their counter-revolutionary goal of suppressing the popular Syrian uprising, which began in March 2011.
Due to their viciousness, both in Syria and Ukraine, Assad and Putin recall the historical figures Generals Sergei Bulgakov (?-1824) and Alexei Yermolov (1777-1861), butchers of the Caucasus, as well as the French General de Ségur (1780-1873). In his function as Napoleon Bonaparte’s underling during the Grand Armée’s invasion of Russia (1812), Comte de Ségur sought to rationalize the extermination of the Muscovites as a necessity for “civilization.”36 Moreover, Putin and Assad’s crimes recall the aggression of the “new high-velocity m[e]n,” Red Army Commander Lev Trotsky (1879-1940) and Soviet Marshal M. N. Tukhachevksy (1893-1937), who crushed the Kronstadt and Tambov Communes in 1921, using overwhelming and relentless force of rapid maneuver.37 After all, the Assad regime’s prison system—described by the former political prisoner Mustafa Khalifeh as a central aspect of Syria’s topology of violence—builds on the French colonialists’ imposition of their carceral system on the country a century ago, as well as on the Soviet Gulag, which was itself inspired by Tsarist military colonies. In fact, the one-party dictatorship which Bashar’s father Hafez al-Assad imposed in 1970 was modeled after the Stalinist regime, and today, ideological and political partisans of Ba’athism openly seek a “USSR 2.0.”
Moreover, Putin and Assad’s employment of mass-aerial bombardment of civilians follows from the Swiss-French imperialist Le Corbusier’s (1887-1965) macabre avowal of air power to “redesign” the Casbah, or citadel, of Algiers, together with the surrounding Old City.38 As well, these autocrats’ use of “vertical power” follows the grim model of the Luftwaffe’s destruction of the Basque town of Guernika in April 1937, within the context of the Spanish Civil War—not to mention US atrocities in World War II, or the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars. If the Russian incendiaries and arsonists who sought to thwart the Grand Armée’s capture of Moscow in 1812 anticipated the pétroleuses of the 1871 Paris Commune, who aimed at burning down buildings symbolizing France’s despotic past and “block[ing] the Versailles invaders with a barrier of flames,” the Syrian anarchist Omar Aziz (1949-2013) was surely right to emphasize that his revolutionary compatriots’ struggle against the Assad regime is “no less than [that of] the workers of the Paris Commune.”39
Conclusion: Justice for Syria and Ukraine
July 2014 banner from Syrian revolutionaries in Kafranbel in solidarity with Ukrainians under attack by Russia
As Munif and al-Kateab morosely chronicle, by all means, the Assad regime-axis has directed special retaliatory violence against autonomous and resistant communities, journalists, and medics in Syria.40 Healthcare workers who render aid to communities outside regime control risk being branded “enemies of the state,” and consequently being detained, tortured, and killed, in accordance with the regime’s strategy of “medical genocide.”41 The annihilatory tactics used by this regime and its allies—mimicking those employed by Western European imperialists, Nazis, and Stalinists alike—reproduce the “unconscious past” of the Soviet Gulag system, which inspired Ba’athist brutalism.42 In the same way, Assad and Putin’s brazen counter-revolution has arguably paved the way for not only the genocidal abuses being carried out by the Chinese Communist Party against millions of Uyghur, Kazakh, and Hui Muslims in Xinjiang, but also the Burmese junta’s coup of February 2021 and subsequent scorched-earth approach to dissent, as well as the ghastly ongoing attack on Ukraine.
Over six years into Russia’s military intervention to stabilize Bashar’s regime as Putin’s only client State in the “far abroad,” Russia has secured bases in the Eastern Mediterranean and destroyed regional Islamist groups by “turn[ing] the liberated areas into death zones.” Still, the pathos of children murdered by Assad and Putin’s bombs and shells in Syria and Ukraine is no less than that of Palestinian children murdered by the Israeli military.43 Echoing Israel’s tactics in Gaza, the Syrian and Russian air forces have targeted markets and up to fifty hospitals, as New York Times reporters have shown. In February 2021, seeking to market the lethality of its weaponry, the Russian military proudly released video of one of its Iskander ballistic missiles hitting Azaz National Hospital, north of Aleppo. On the Ukrainian front, as we have seen, the main enemy is the same.
In the continuities between the Tolstoyan scenes and sequences from the “Sevastopol Sketches” and War and Peace which center wounded and dying soldiers, the mass-displacement of civilians, and the urbicidal devastation of entire cities like Smolensk and Moscow during the Crimean and Napoleonic Wars on the one hand with the destruction of Syrian and Ukrainian cities like East Aleppo, Eastern Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun, Mariupol, Kharkiv, and Kyiv on the other, we perceive constancy in the fundamentally brutal exercise of State power. We must face these tragedies with Tolstoyan realism and compassion by doing our best to stop Putin, Assad, and their enablers; avoiding an escalation from fratricidal to nuclear war; and supporting revolutionaries, protesters, refugees, and victims of militarism across borders.
1 Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy’s Diaries, ed. and translated by R. F. Christian (London: Flamingo, 1985), 54.
2 Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy: Later Years (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 378.
3 Donna Tussing Orwin, “Chronology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Tolstoy, ed. Donna Tussing Orwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 4-6.
4 Rosamund Bartlett, Tolstoy: A Russian Life (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2011), 246-9; Nicolas Berdyaev, Slavery and Freedom (San Rafael: Semantron Press, 2009), 66; Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 101.
5 Leo Tolstoy, The Cossacks and Other Stories, trans. David McDuff and Paul Foote (London: Penguin Books, 2006), 192 (emphasis added).
6 John P. Clark, Between Earth and Empire: From the Necrocene to the Beloved Community (Oakland: PM Press, 2019), 194.
7 Алексей и Владимир Туниманов Зверев, Лев Толстой. Вступ. статья. В. Я. Курбатова (Moscow: Youth Guard, 2006), 12; Dmitry Shlapentokh, “Marx, the ‘Asiatic Mode of Production,’ and ‘Oriental Despotism’ as ‘True’ Socialism,” Comparative Sociology 18 (2019), 508; Richard Sokoloski, “Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych: First and Final Chapter,” Tolstoy Studies Journal, vol. 9 (1997), 51; Peter Kropotkin, Russian Literature: Ideals and Realities (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1991), 118.
8 Irvin D. Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 478-80; James Hillman, A Terrible Love of War (New York: Penguin, 2004), 51.
9 Andrei Zorin, Critical Lives: Leo Tolstoy (London: Reaktion Books, 2020), 31; Liza Knapp, “The development of style and theme in Tolstoy,” The Cambridge Companion to Tolstoy, ed. Donna Tussing Orwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 172; Berdyaev 157; Gunisha Kaur, “From torture to ultraviolence: medical and legal implications,”The Lancet, 6 April 2021.
10 Anna Borshchevskaya, Putin’s War in Syria: Russian Foreign Policy and the Price of America’s Absence (London: I. B. Tauris, 2022), 42.
11 Yasser Munif, The Syrian Revolution: Between the Politics of Life and the Geopolitics of Death (London: Pluto, 2020), 37-40.
12 Lilie Chouliaraki, The Spectatorship of Suffering (London: Sage, 2006), 18, 76, 118.
13 Christopher Bellamy, “Tolstoy, Count Leo,” The Oxford Companion to Military History, ed. Richard Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 914; Orwin 4.
14 Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (New York: Basic Books, 2015), 348; Catherine Evtuhov et al., A History of Russia: Peoples, Legends, Events, Forces (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 399.
16 Knapp 171; Chouliaraki 21-43, 71 (emphasis in original); Charles Reitz, Ecology and Revolution: Herbert Marcuse and the Challenge of a New World System Today (Routledge: New York, 2019), 84-5.
17 Zorin 29; Evtuhov et al. 367-70; Christopher Bellamy, “Sevastopol, sieges of,” The Oxford Companion to Military History, ed. Richard Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 821.
20 Tolstoy 2006: 190, 192, 200, 228-9 (emphasis in original).
21 Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 30-1.
26 Rick McPeak, “Tolstoy and Clausewitz: The Duel as a Microcosm of War,” eds. Rick McPeak and Donna Tussing Orwin (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2012), 116; Orlando Figes and Boris Kolonitskii, Interpreting the Russian Revolution: The Language and Symbols of 1917 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 148).
29 Lisa Knapp, “The development of style and theme in Tolstoy,” The Cambridge Companion to Tolstoy, ed. Donna Tussing Orwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 170.
30 Tolstoy 2006: 236-7; Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, trans. Louise and Aylmer Maude (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 756.
33 Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 27, 168; Clark 187.
34 Samer Jabbour et al. “10 years of the Syrian conflict: a time to act and not merely to remember,” The Lancet, vol. 397, issue 10281 (2021), P1245-8.
35 Rania Abouzeid, No Turning Back: Life, Loss, and Hope in Wartime Syria (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2018), 182-3; Munif 9.
36 Alexander M. Martin. “Moscow in 1812: Myths and Realities.” Tolstoy On War, eds. Rick McPeak and Donna Tussing Orwin (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2012), 42-58.
37 Richard Stites, Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 161; Christopher Bellamy, “Tukhachevskiy, Marshal Mikhail Nikolaeyich,” The Oxford Companion to Military History, ed. Richard Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 924-5; Neil Croll, “The role of M.N. Tukhachevskii in the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion,” Revolutionary Russia, (17) 2 (2004), 10-14.
39 Robert Graham, We Do Not Fear Anarchy; We Invoke It (Oakland: AK Press, 2015), 6-7; David A. Shafer, The Paris Commune: French Politics, Culture, and Society at the Crossroads of the Revolutionary Tradition and Revolutionary Socialism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 95, 159.
The following are six questions related to the position stated in my “Memorandum on the radical anti-imperialist position regarding the war in Ukraine”
Question 1: Is the “Global South” supporting Russia?
Let’s look at the facts. Consider first the left in the Global South where there have been contrasted positions. In the Arabic-speaking part of the world from which I come, the only “left” parties to have supported the Russian invasion are those that supported the bloodthirsty regime of Bashar al-Assad, under Russian protectorate. The two main communist parties in the region, those of Iraq and Sudan, unequivocally condemned the Russian invasion, while also denouncing (as it should be) the policy of US imperialism. In its statement, the Sudanese CP, after denouncing the conflicts between imperialist forces, “condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine and demands the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from this country while condemning the continuation by the US-led imperialist alliance of its policy of stirring up tensions and war, and threatening world peace and security.” The Sudanese Communists are well placed to know the truth about imperialism from Russia, the only one of the great powers that openly supports the putschists in their country.
As for Global South states, in the UN General Assembly vote on condemning the Russian invasion, thirty-five of them abstained. All states located in the Global North either voted for the resolution (all Western and allied countries) or against (Russia itself and Belarus). However, it does not take much insight to realize that among the 141 countries that voted for the resolution, there were far more than 35 states from the same global South. It is therefore not a “North-South divide,” but a cleavage between friends and/or clients of Western imperialism, on the one hand, and friends and/or clients of Russian imperialism, on the other. And since most of the latter are also friends and/or clients of Western imperialisms, they preferred to abstain rather than add their votes to those of the five states that voted against the resolution, which are, in addition to the two already noted, North Korea, Syria, and Eritrea.
It is true that the two most populated countries located in the Global South: China – itself the subject of debate as to its imperialist nature, which shows how simplistic the North-South scheme is in politics – and the Indian government of the fascist Narendra Modi cozied up to Russia. But among the countries that voted for the UN resolution, we find states such as AMLO’s Mexico, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, Bolsonaro’s Brazil (yet Putin’s admirer), the generals’ Myanmar (covered by Beijing), and Duterte’s Philippines.
Question 2: Wouldn’t Ukraine’s standing up against the Russian invasion benefit NATO?
The first thing to say is “so what?” Our support to peoples fighting imperialism shouldn’t depend on which imperialist side is backing them. Otherwise, by the same logic, justice should be sacrificed to the supreme battle against the “Western bloc,” as some argue in neo-campist pseudo-left circles. For my part, I wrote that a Russian success – an outcome that unfortunately still remains a real possibility – “would embolden US imperialism itself and its allies to continue their own aggressive behavior.” Indeed, the United States and its Western allies have already benefited enormously from Putin’s action. They should be warmly grateful to the Russian autocrat.
A successful Russian takeover of Ukraine would encourage the United States to return to the path of conquering the world by force in a context of exacerbation of the new colonial division of the world and worsening of global antagonisms, while a Russian failure – adding to the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan – would reinforce what is called in Washington the “Vietnam syndrome.” Moreover, it seems quite obvious to me that a Russian victory would considerably strengthen warmongering and the push towards increased military spending in NATO countries, which has already gotten off to a flying start, while a Russian defeat would offer much better conditions for our battle for general disarmament and the dissolution of NATO.
If Ukraine were to succeed in rejecting the Russian yoke, it is more than likely that it would be vassalized to Western powers. But the point is that, if it fails to do so, it will be enserfed to Russia. And you don’t have to be a qualified medievalist to know that the condition of a vassal is incomparably preferable to that of a serf!
Question 3: How can we radical anti-imperialists support a resistance that is led by a rightwing bourgeois government?
Should we support a people that resists against an over-armed imperialist invasion only if its resistance is led by communists and not by a bourgeois government? This is a very old ultra-left position on the national question, which Lenin rightfully combatted in his time. A just struggle against national oppression, let alone foreign occupation, must be supported regardless of the nature of its leadership: if this fight is just, it implies that the population concerned actively participates in it and deserves support, regardless of the nature of its leadership.
It is certainly not the Ukrainian capitalists who are mobilizing en masse with the Ukrainian armed forces in the form of an improvised national guard and new-style “pétroleuses,” but the working people of Ukraine. And in their fight against Great Russian imperialism, led by an autocratic and oligarchic ultra-reactionary government in Moscow that presides over the destinies of one of the most unequal countries on the planet, the Ukrainian people deserve our full support. This certainly does not imply that we cannot criticize the Kyiv government.
Question 4: Isn’t the ongoing war an inter-imperialist war?
If any war where each side is supported by an imperialist rival were called an inter-imperialist war, then all the wars of our time would be inter-imperialist, since as a rule, it is enough for one of the rival imperialisms to support one side for the other to support the opposite side. An inter-imperialist war is not that. It is a direct war, and not one by proxy, between two powers, each of which seeks to invade the territorial and (neo)colonial domain of the other, as was very clearly the First World War. It is a “war of rapine” on both sides, as Lenin liked to call it.
To describe the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, in which the latter country has no ambition, let alone intention, of seizing Russian territory, and in which Russia has the stated intention of subjugating Ukraine and seizing much of its territory – to call this conflict inter-imperialist, rather than an imperialist war of invasion, is an extreme distortion of reality.
The primary, most immediate, function of the supply of arms to Ukraine is therefore that it helps it oppose its enserfment, even if, on the other hand, it wishes its vassalization in the belief that it is the only guarantee of its freedom. We must, of course, also oppose its vassalization, but for the time being, the most urgent need must be addressed.
Of course, the direct entry into war of the other imperialist camp would transform the current conflict into a true inter-imperialist war, in the correct sense of the concept, a type of war to which we are categorically hostile. For now, NATO members are declaring that they will not cross the red line of sending troops to fight the Russian armed forces on Ukrainian soil, or shooting down Russian planes in Ukrainian airspace – despite Volodymyr Zelensky’s exhortations. This is because they rightly fear a fatal spiral, skeptical, as they have become, about the rationality of Putin who did not hesitate to brandish the nuclear threat from the outset.
Question 5: Can we support Western arms deliveries to Ukraine?
Since the Ukrainians’ fight against the Russian invasion is just, it is quite right to help them defend themselves against an enemy far superior in numbers and armament. That is why we are without hesitation in favor of the delivery of defensive weapons to the Ukrainian resistance. But what does this mean?
An example: we are certainly in favor of delivering anti-aircraft missiles, portable and otherwise, to the Ukrainian resistance. To oppose it would be to say that Ukrainians only have to choose between, on the one hand, being massacred and seeing their cities destroyed by the Russian air force, without having the means they need to defend themselves, or, on the other hand, fleeing their country. At the same time, however, we must not only oppose the irresponsible idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine or part of its territory; we must also oppose the delivery of air fighters to Ukraine that Zelensky has been demanding. Fighters are not strictly defensive weaponry, and their supply to Ukraine would actually risk significantly aggravating Russian bombing.
In short, we are in favor of the supply to Ukraine of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, as well as all the armaments indispensable for the defense of a territory. To deny Ukraine these deliveries is simply to be guilty of failure to assist a people in danger! We have called for the delivery of such defensive weapons to the Syrian opposition in the past. The United States refused and even prevented its local allies from handing them over to the Syrians, in part because of the Israeli veto. We know what the consequences were.
Question 6: What should be our attitude toward Western sanctions inflicted upon Russia?
I wrote in my Memorandum:
“Western powers have decided a whole set of new sanctions against the Russian state for its invasion of Ukraine. Some of these may indeed curtail the ability of Putin’s autocratic regime to fund its war machine, others may be harmful to the Russian population without much affecting the regime or its oligarchic cronies. Our opposition to the Russian aggression combined with our mistrust of Western imperialist governments means that we should neither support the latter’s sanctions, nor demand that they be lifted.”
Another way to translate this is to say that we are in favor of sanctions that affect Russia’s ability to wage war as well as its oligarchs, but not those that affect its population. The latter formulation is correct in principle, but it would then have to be translated concretely. However, we do not have the means to examine the impact of the full range of sanctions already imposed by the Western powers on Russia, which is why I suggested that we should neither support the sanctions, nor demand that they be lifted as long as Russia’s criminal invasion is going on.
On March 10, 2022, The Guardian published an article titled “The west v Russia: why the global south isn’t taking sides,” by David Adler, the general coordinator of the Progressive International. In essence, the author of the text tries to justify the position of that part of the Western Left which refused to support the resistance of the people of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression and limited itself to general calls for peace and a “diplomatic solution.” I decided to write a response to this article for several reasons. First, its main argument may seem convincing to many leftists, whereas I disagree with it; second, our Commons Journal is still a member of the Progressive International; and third, the author directly refers to my “letter to the Western Left,” hence his article is also a response to me. This is my attempt to continue that dialogue.
International Law
Adler’s article begins with a reference to an emergency session of the UN General Assembly on Russian aggression against Ukraine. Frankly, this surprised me, because against the background of the Progressive International Cabinet’s toothless statement, the UN resolution is frankly a paragon of radicalism. Unfortunately, David Adler does not explain why the unelected Cabinet of the Progressive International failed to do what 141 countries at the General Assembly did — support the demand for Russia to “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its armed forces from Ukraine.” Instead, Adler points out that the Global South has not imposed sanctions against Russia, so it is only the “West” and its East Asian allies that are actively pressing Russia.
“[T]he true rift is not between left and right, nor even between east and west,” Adler writes, but “between north and south, between the nations that we call developed and those we call developing.” In short, by pointing to the reluctance of the Global South’s governments to impose sanctions, Adler is trying to absolve himself of responsibility and maintain his ostrich position.
I do not intend to downplay the gap between the Global South and the West. On the contrary, as a resident of the poorest country in Eastern Europe, I am sympathetic to the reluctance of poor countries to suffer obvious economic losses due to their active involvement in the conflict. Especially since it is the Global South, not the West, that will suffer from the food crisis that awaits us all because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But I have a completely different attitude to rich countries’ reluctance to impose sanctions because these would entail losses for them. Western governments have no excuse in this matter. And, for the Western left, the position of the Global South cannot serve as an excuse for trying to withdraw from this conflict.
However, the reluctance to participate actively in the conflict of countries that have been victims of Western imperialism has not only economic reasons, but also obvious historical and political ones, to which Adler refers. He also quotes Pierre Sané, president of the Imagine Africa Institute and former secretary general of Amnesty International. “Neutrality does not mean indifference,” says Pierre Sané, “Neutrality means continuously calling for the respect of international laws.” Pierre Sané’s position is unequivocal. That of the Progressive International, on the other hand, isn’t, and I can’t help but ask again, why then did its statement not call for compliance with international law and, accordingly, demand that Russia immediately withdraw its troops from Ukraine?
As Marwan Bishara pointed out, the reluctance of many countries to get involved in the conflict “has less to do with Ukraine and more to do with America.” That is understandable. But to stand up for international law now is to support the struggle of the Ukrainian people for their freedom and independence, at least through statements. Unfortunately, the Progressive International has not even done that.
Historical Parallels
David Adler draws a parallel between the Global South’s reluctance to participate actively in the current conflict and the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War. But he ignores a fundamental difference between the current conflict and the Cold War. If the West has not changed much politically since the Cold War, the other side of the conflict, Russia, has changed dramatically. Like it or not, Russia today has more in common with the Third Reich than with the Soviet Union. I do not consider Putin’s regime fascist, but in this case, it is really hard to avoid parallels. In both cases we have an empire that lost the global confrontation, with which the enemy behaved arrogantly after victory, and where revanchist sentiments have taken root. A society that did not accept territorial losses and supported the use of brute military force to regain territory.
The Soviet Union, despite its authoritarianism, deportations, and massacres, offered the world a definite progressive project. Putin’s regime promotes only conservatism, aggressive nationalism, and the division of the world into spheres of influence of the “great powers.” In this respect, despite all the differences, the Third Reich is the closest analogy to Putin’s Russia.
The reluctance of the Global South to support Western pressure on Russia is also comparable to the reluctance of anti-colonial movements to support their metropolises’ wars with the Axis countries. It is often glossed over now, but the African and Asian colonies of European states had different attitudes toward participation in World War II. Chandra Bose, one of the leaders of the Indian National Congress, even cooperated with the Germans and Japanese and participated in the formation of the SS Legion of Free India. And he was far from alone — as historian David Motadel notes:
At the height of the Second World War, scores of anticolonial revolutionaries flocked to Germany from North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia, turning wartime Berlin into a hub of global anti-imperial revolutionary activism. Driven by the contingencies of war, German officials made increasing efforts to mobilize anti-imperial movements, reaching out to the subjects of the British and French empires and the minorities of the Soviet Union.
I do not mention this to judge the people who took part in these anti-colonial movements. There is no ambiguity about the Third Reich, but anti-colonial movements that chose to collaborate with it and with the Japanese deserve more understanding. Especially on the part of citizens of Western countries that never faced such a difficult choice as colonized nations did during the Second World War. People fighting for their freedom have to pick their allies not in circumstances of their own choosing, but under circumstances that already exist. By recalling this episode, I simply want to show that the position of the Global South countries cannot be an argument in the discussion of the Russian aggression against Ukraine any more than it was 80 years ago.
But enough of the historical digressions. Fortunately, modern Russia is not the Third Reich, and it will not be able to wage a large-scale war for long. We must not allow the war to escalate into World War III, so the international left must not support the direct involvement of other states in the war. But socialists must unequivocally condemn the aggressor and support political and economic pressure on him. At the same time, the international left must not see Ukrainians only as victims – we, too, have our own views on what we would like our country to be, and we are ready to fight for them And we need international help in our struggle. Support the demand to give Ukraine airplanes and air defense. If you don’t want to pressure your governments on this issue, at least support the demand to write off Ukraine’s foreign debt and call for tough sanctions, especially against the oligarchs.
Global South
In conclusion, I would like to address the people of the Global South. For the past two weeks I have been reading surprised responses from Syrians who ask why the world did not react as actively when Russian planes bombed their homes, and why Syrian refugees were not treated with such hospitality. Obviously, one of the reasons is that we are more “white.” I’m sorry that you were treated differently. But at the same time, the current situation gives the whole world a chance.
One of the features of Hitler’s policy was that he transferred European colonial practices intended for “non-whites” to Europe. This helped to discredit colonial policy as such, and Germany’s defeat contributed to the collapse of other colonial empires. Something similar could happen again now. Putin decided to repeat what the U.S. did with Iraq, but did not consider that the reaction to the aggression of an authoritarian empire against a more democratic Eastern European republic would be so different. And this allows us to finally put an end to such politics around the world.
I understand the reluctance to support your former colonialists in their struggle against another imperialism and the warnings that a stronger U.S. would impact you negatively. But let’s not forget that last year U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan in disgrace — for a while it will discourage them from pursuing aggressive policies.
At the same time, as we now see, other imperialist predators can profit from this situation. Russia already bombed Syria, it has subjugated the governments of Central Africa and Mali, to say nothing of its imperial dominance over Kazakhstan and Central Asia. If it wins in Ukraine, it will be able to meddle in your countries’ affairs, too. Whereas its defeat can restrain not only Russia but also other global and regional powers. And the sooner this war is over, the less negative its consequences will be, including in terms of the food crisis.
This does not mean that Ukraine’s victory will have no negative consequences. And while I now wish with all my heart for Russia to be defeated as soon as possible, I am also concerned that a weakening of Russia in the South Caucasus would allow Azerbaijan to resume the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. My friends live in Armenia, and although they do not like their country’s dependence on Russia any more than I like Ukraine’s dependence on the West, in both cases dependence offers weak but certain security guarantees. And understanding the position of Armenia, I do not expect much from them — on the contrary, I am grateful that in the UN General Assembly Armenia at least abstained and did not vote against the resolution.
But preserving this system is not the solution. We need to develop and strengthen the global system of international security. And in Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, the security issue could be partially solved by replacing Russian “peacekeepers” with UN peacekeepers. At the same time, the solution of Ukrainian problems could help you as well. For example, writing off our foreign debt would set a precedent, which I hope you could then use.
Tough times are coming. But there is only one thing worse than a crisis: missing the chance it offers. Ukraine should become Russia’s Vietnam, but for this we need international aid, the same way Vietnam needed it during the US invasion. Currently we don’t even have enough of Kalashnikovs. Please help us. If you cannot impose sanctions, help us in whatever other way you can. And after Russia is defeated, we will have to work jointly on the democratization of the global order.
Russian protestor arrested. She holds a sign saying, “No War.” Photo from Al Jazeera
Since the very first day of the war, protests have been ongoing throughout Russia, and they have taken a variety of forms. The primary one is the daily “stroll” on the streets. In contemporary Russian political language, the words gulyanie (strolling) or progulka (a walk) mean protests and meetings. Formally, only one-person pickets are allowed, but their participants are usually immediately detained by the police. For this reason, people often simply agree to face the risk of arrest together and come out onto the streets at the same time. On the morning of February 24, only a few hours after Russian forces crossed over into Ukrainian territory, people realized that something monstrous and intolerable was underway. One after another they began to write on social media that it was time to take a “big walk.” The very same evening, people came out into the streets with the slogan “No to War!”
On the first day, it was terrifying. Nobody knew what kind of reaction to expect from the police, or which degree of violence they would employ. After a week of protesting, it seems to me that people are no longer afraid. The situation in our society is so catastrophic that people realize they already have nothing to lose. This is why many are ready to take the risk—they are unafraid of going to jail, of losing their jobs or their entire lives. Something must be done to finally end this war, for which we feel guilt, shame, alarm, and horror.
People are learning about digital security, creating networks of solidarity to circumvent official censorship, bans, and internet blocks. They make factsheets for those under arrest, Telegram channels for quickly exchanging information to coordinate meetings, legal help, and material support for those caught in the clutches of the police. Recently, however, some of the Western sanctions have impeded the coordination of protest and opposition actions. For example, Visa and MasterCard’s departure from Russia means that people cannot even download paid VPN software. In other words, they risk being cut off from communication at any given moment.
The protesters include people of different ages and professions. Student and feminist initiatives deserve special mention. Feminists have it especially hard. They were subject to repressions and bullying before the war, as the Russian ideology of militarism is primarily a patriarchal one. On March 6, for example, the biggest protest action took place. 5,000 were arrested and held without access to legal counsel. The police use electroshock weapons, take away people’s telephones, and sometimes subject people to torture.
There are also more moderate forms of protest—for example, the “quiet picket.” People use anti-war symbols in everyday life, on their clothing, and so on. Some paste stickers or hand out leaflets—which is also very dangerous. In some cases, the police find people pasting stickers through footage from surveillance cameras, which are now all over the place. So basically, we are not giving up, but there are few of us, and even the largest mass protests remain invisible to most. The major independent magazines, newspapers, and internet resources have closed down, and state mass media are the only ones left standing, pumping out militaristic propaganda 24/7. We do not have enough resources to make the Russian peace movement visible in the country and abroad. We need help so that protestors can feel that their risks and efforts are not made in vain.
How has the so-called intelligentsia reacted to these events? Many are leaving or have already left. Many dropped everything and just left for nowhere—whoever could do so moved to Europe, many others have gone to the former USSR countries that are still destinations for Russian planes: Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, or countries that admit Russians without visas: Turkey, for example. People are fleeing Russia, trying to bring their families and children with them, because they have no illusions about there being any future at home. Most of my friends are already abroad, and their hearts are breaking. Those who stay behind and who don’t have hope or strength to fight close up and fall into depression; some take to drink, others consider suicide. I’ve thought of that, too. I’m worried about my friends in Russia whose homes are being searched by the police; I’m worried to death about my relatives and friends in Ukraine. I feel direct physical terror and horror; my hands are shaking. The only thing that helps is to find them all and to try to do something.
We are now caught in the crossfire. Our country’s foreign policy is war; its domestic policy is terror. These two things did not befall us suddenly, but gestated over the years, starting from the very moment that Putin came to power in 2000. He had no unambiguous ideology, but a goal: to hold onto power by any means. The two time-tested tools to do so were repression and military operations. Old activists and dissidents remember how the OMON fighters would have been among those opposing Putin’s policies for the longest time. In the 2010s, the presidential elections were finally turned into a farce—no matter how we voted, Putin would win anyway due to massive election fraud. The machine of political repression gathered momentum; police violence grew widespread, and new political prisoners emerged. The state also resorted to another effective means of quashing internal dissent with a violent, grandly corrupt administrative system—namely, so-called military operations.
Putin first became president in the wake of the war in Chechnya, which resulted in Russia’s domination of the territory at a massive cost to human life. He came with war. Aggressive foreign policy is the most powerful ideological argument, ensuring the support of a large portion of the population. Starting wars helps the regime to hold onto its electorate, and even if our country winds up totally isolated, impoverished, and destroyed—and this will happen very soon—there will be plenty of people who will honestly vote for Putin in the 2024 elections. It was in view of those elections that Russia’s constitution was amended in 2020, making a lifelong presidency possible for Putin. Many among the liberal intelligentsia began distancing themselves from Putin’s policies in 2010, when open repression and limits of personal freedom began. But the problem lay elsewhere. As a colleague has written on Facebook (I won’t name him for security reasons), while we thought we were fighting Stalinism, we raised a fascist of our own.
Please donate to New Politics to allow us to continue bringing you independent, sharp, and provocative political analysis.
You can make a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.
To subscribe, click here. Need help in making your donation or in subscribing—or just want to send us your suggestions? Contact us at newpoliticsjournal@gmail.com.
New Politics actively seeks submission of online articles
We welcome the opportunity to be a site of left discussion and debate, and we are especially interested in running articles that engage important issues on the left that are in keeping with the broad democratic and socialism-from-below approach that is a proud tradition New Politics continues to embrace.
See Why We Publish for our general political perspective. Please send submissions to newpoliticsjournal@gmail.com.
Follow
New Politics Updates
New Politics Updates is a free newsletter for readers of New Politics, in whatever venue. It provides an up-to-date list of recent articles at the website, notifications regarding the print edition, announcements of events featuring our authors, and other items of probable interest to readers of our journal.
Rest easy: We won't flood your inbox (the newsletter will appear two to four times a month) and your contact information will not be shared with anyone.
Top
Please Donate or Subscribe to New Politics!
The New Politics Summer 2024 issue is now out, featuring articles on the Gaza protests, the U.S. election, labor in China, American politics, international politics, and socialist theory, along with review essays and reviews. Articles will be gradually released on the web.
You can help us by making your tax-deductible donation here. Or by subscribing (see options here). Or by doing both. If you’ve already done so, you can close this annoying box with the satisfaction you’ve helped us to persist in defending and exploring “socialism from below.”
Anticapitalist Organisations of Russia, Ukraine, and NATO Countries
The antiwar anti-imperialist left worldwide has been deeply divided on the war in Ukraine along quite unusual lines, due to the novelty of the situation represented by Russia’s invasion of a weaker neighboring country with openly stated nationalistic expansionist ambitions, along with NATO’s active and substantial support for the invaded country’s resistance. The same left had already been facing division over Russia’s murderous intervention in Syria after Iran’s, but the conditions were very different.
The conflict in Yemen has been going on for a long time with horrendous human consequences. Non specialists find the situation extremely complex, with many internal parties and many outside players, so it makes sense to talk to one of the English-speaking world’s leading experts on Yemen, Helen Lackner, a research associate at SOAS at the University of London and author of, among other works, the award-winning 
In a recent statement released by Hugpong ng Pagbabago (HNP or Alliance for Change), the regional party founded by Sara Duterte, daughter of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, activist-scholar Professor Walden Bello was unfoundedly and maliciously labeled as a “narco-politician.”
Let us imagine that the United States invaded Venezuela, as it contemplated doing for a while under Donald Trump, and that Russia decided to supply the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro with weapons to help it fight the invaders. US troops are meeting a fierce resistance in the barrios and countryside of Venezuela. Negotiations between Washington and Caracas have started in Colombia, while Washington is trying to force the Venezuelan government to capitulate to its diktat.
Dear compatriots, dear workers!
In the postwar period, the German philosopher and critic Theodor Adorno famously condemned directly political artworks, stating “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Today we might well ask whether it’s possible for onlookers to create memes about the war in Ukraine. Too often even our most sincere statements of solidarity expressed on social media seem crass, not unlike gestures made by outlets, such as the renaming of the cocktail “Moscow Mule” to “Kyiv Mule.” What can Adorno teach us about representations of warfare in the social media age?
Recently, the Ukrainian National Defense and Security Council decided for the temporary suspension of the activities of a number of Ukrainian political parties. The list includes both major opposition parties and less known ones that use words ‘progressive,’ ‘left,’ or ‘socialist’ in their names. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky accused them of “connections with Russia,” but did not back the claim with any proper legal reasoning.
The Ukrainian government announces the abduction in the occupied city of Kherson of the director of the regional theater and director Oleksandr Kniga by the Russian army. Putin is implementing his unfortunately usual policy of terror and intimidation of the populations in the occupied territories, especially those who can speak out against the occupation.
The following are six questions related to the position stated in my “Memorandum on the radical anti-imperialist position regarding the war in Ukraine”
On March 10, 2022, The Guardian published an article titled “The west v Russia: why the global south isn’t taking sides,” by David Adler, the general coordinator of the Progressive International. In essence, the author of the text tries to justify the position of that part of the Western Left which refused to support the resistance of the people of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression and limited itself to general calls for peace and a “diplomatic solution.” I decided to write a response to this article for several reasons. First, its main argument may seem convincing to many leftists, whereas I disagree with it; second, our Commons Journal is still a member of the Progressive International; and third, the author directly refers to my “
