The article by Gallus The Russian “Threat to Freedom and Democracy” to me at large is not persuasive and has multiple issues at hand.
Let’s start beginning – an extremely curious one. Arguing there is a media scare of the invasion – well, clearly, it was not one. The “Gleischaltung” of the media regarding these claims (“outlandish”) ended up being right. Something one should address, why one is wrong or right. To me this seems at large self-justification – instead of examining how large parts of the communist left got it, simply, wrong – very wrong (me included).
Now, let’s continue:
“In an awesome suspension of all logic, common sense and critical analysis, we are told repeatedly that we simply cannot know what is “in Putin’s head,” despite repeated vocal statements of Russian security concerns and demands expressed in negotiations throughout this crisis and extensive expressions of the Kremlin’s ruminations.”
Taking statements of Putin and uncritically regurgitating him is to me questionable – well, sure that’s what he’s saying, but how do you position these statements? And, as it stands, let’s take the Russian government at their word: they have, multiple times, stated invasion would not happen1, that Minsk 2 was the only path to diplomacy. Well, what now? A new Putin? Mental psychosis? Lavrov stated this even on the same day LNR and DNR had been recognized.2 The invasion was pre-planned before the beginning of confrontation at large from the evidence we can gather – one can examine Kadyrov being informed of invasion (if there’s been any evidence Kadyrov’s leaks are wrong, I’d be pleased to be corrected) already back in February 2021.3 This is not to say Russia did not try to do coercive diplomacy first, to see where it would get Russia. But clearly, intent existed. As such, the portrayal of the Russian government as an honest, reasonable broker only interested in Russia’s supposed legitimate interests in Ukraine is to be put into question.
Furthermore,
“Ultimately, it is the US government and NATO’s historic imperial and economic ambitions, military expansion, national chauvinism and necessary “otherization” of entire peoples to justify its continued existence, that lies at the heart of the last eight years of open tensions and war between Russia and Ukraine.”
NATO came to largely leave Russia out of its structure, intentionally so, because it would have been an obstacle to a quick integration of Eastern Europe; however, Russia is not free from ‘otherizing’, it is increasingly broadening the scope of ‘nazis’ and ‘banderists’ in Ukraine, etc. What a non-banderist Ukrainian and a banderist Ukrainian is, is often unclear frankly.
“Whereas conversations in the past around other foreign actors and states, such as Iran or even ISIS, have centered around questioning whether they are “rational actors” or not, this question has been systematically avoided in the past decade when it comes to understanding the motives of the Russian Federation. It is simply asserted that when Putin opens his mouth he cannot be trusted because, as we all know, criminals can never have legitimate grievances but must be punished. How could one understand “Mad Vlad”? No one knows! In fact, in the current political environment, daring to ask this question is tantamount to being a “Russian apologist,” or worse.”
Well, no. There was a lot of engagement from various scholars and media seeking to understand Russia, and what it was as a ‘rational actor’ (a totally useless category, as every actor is rational in seeking to enforce their rationale) – with a lot stating that invasion was unlikely because of a multitude of factors. Hell, a Rand author – published in Financial Times4 – even stated that it should be communicated by the US from the start that there is no intention to admit Ukraine any time soon to avoid conflict. So not like these viewpoints were ostracised back then. Or, maybe, Rand has been infiltrated by Putinist agents.
Furthermore, the question with regard to Russia being a “rational actor” ignores this being a distinctly bourgeois, geopolitical category – as the issue fundamentally at any notion of “rational actor” is what rationale it serves, one which becomes vital when examining the “rationality” of a head of an imperialist country,5 and advancing such interests in foreign policy even to the level of outright military invasion.
“We are led to believe that the “Russian bear” is simply hell bent on foreign conquest, on resurrecting the Tsarist Empire or even the Soviet Union.”
I’m not sure what this is responding to; assuming ‘Russian bear’ here is used as a synonym for Russia. Well, a. the government is invading Ukraine currently, that is a fact. It is now bombarding civilians in Kharkiv with grads6; b. no it does not seek to resurrect the Soviet Union, but the historical vision embraced by Putin et al is one which is distinctly imperialist – as it seeks to deny the right to self-determination of Ukraine repeatedly. Putin’s statements regarding Ukraine in large part are indistinguishable from the reactionary nonsense peddled by the likes of Solzhenitsyn7, Ivan Ilyin, Denikin8 et al. And their view was distinctly imperialist. He does not seek to restore the USSR, no, his criticism of it is its respect for the right to self-determination.9
“Starting with the negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union during the collapse of former East Germany, historical accounts record that “categorical assurances” were repeatedly given to the Soviet and Russian governments that NATO would “not move one inch eastward” into Eastern Europe.”
Two qualifications here: the statement is at large overstated and not became a centre, as Gorbachev himself at the time it was uttered was still sceptical of German unification and his admittance later on was driven by the collapse of GDR.10 Secondly, it was a proposal of imperial redivision between NATO and USSR – repartitioning the world in accordance with USSR’s collapse of its own distinctive sphere and reconciliation with NATO. One should examine it more deeply, its context – and move beyond the surface of “broken agreements”.
“Without an imposing “enemy” around the threat of which to discipline the alliance partners and justify its total military budget exceeding $1.2 trillion annually, what use would a European nuclear deterrent military alliance be, besides occasionally toppling over third world tin-pot dictators?”
One would have to give proof for this – considering Russian-NATO relationships were for a long time quite well, and they did not offer substantive opposition to the Afghanistan War et al. Clearly, for quite a while NATO was able to justify itself through other concerns like the Global War on Terror; “toppling over third world tin-pot dictators” allowed it to give quite a lot of unity!
So far, there is no actual political analysis at large; what do these guarantees mean, why were they done, how did they affect the Russian foreign policy. It is simply stating these must be ‘upheld’ – why? On good manners the world does not live, and as it stands, reducing Russia’s foreign policy to a broken promise is simply not useful analysis at all, frankly. As it is tied to internal processes and how they intermixed – e.g., conflicting attitudes on Russia’s war against Chechnya between Russia (at the time under Yeltsin) and NATO, where the latter often were quite critical of it for instance, etc. To me, the approach used by Gallus is unconvincing and analytically stilted.
“Sanctions, encroachment and continual military encirclement of Russia are threats to global peace, and are perceived throughout Russia as a grave threat.”
Yes – though it is quite questionable this piece, so far, has condemned sanctions but not the invasion of Ukraine.
“In his rather jingoist conception, the fall of the Soviet Union was mainly a tragedy because millions of Russians found themselves outside the borders of Russia overnight. Yet, given the complex history and ethnically fractured nature of the region, especially of Ukraine, it simply is a fact that this was the case. Ethnic tensions frozen in time throughout the period of the Soviet Union’s existence became apparent only after its collapse. Haughty western assertions of respecting “national sovereignty” in Ukraine completely dismiss the complex history and ethnic tensions ratcheted up by Ukrainian nationalist policies of the past years.”
The Russians in Central Asia, for example, were outright settlers – they were send there to take up the land after nomads were sedentarized, took up corresponding political identities often, etc.11 Same applies to Caucasus. Clearly, one should examine ethnic conflicts and the nature of inter-ethnic relations far more deeply; this tells us nothing. Yes, Ukrainian nationalist historiography is – at large – bullshit. But things being “complex” does help us no further, well what does this mean concretely? Seemingly, the narrative by the Russian government is ‘true’ and jingoistic. So, not jingoistic at all, but ‘facts’.
“For eight years, the Minsk Agreement has been systematically deemed a non-starter by Kiev, which opted to continually fight a war with the separatists and denied talks with these “terrorists.””
Yes – this was because the veteran lobby was able to create an outsized influence on Ukraine, and in direct violation with Minsk 2. However, as it stands, Russia’s war has been nothing but a pure gift to these nationalists if anything12 – as now, open russophobia is entirely without any possible opposition to it, and the far-right’s rank shall only be swelled, while these nationalists will in the future be ever closer to realising their Ukraine without Russian membership. A point, which should be stated as well.
“Furthermore, instead of ceding to Russian demands to start large-scale, intensive negotiations for European security, ones which last more than one day in existing forums such as Normandy Forum etc., Western alliance members have backed the unfounded Ukrainian nationalist aspirations to expel Russian troops from “its” territories in Crimea and the southeast of “modern Ukraine,” composed of Russian ethnic or language majorities.”
Not sure on what this is based that NATO backed the attempt to expel Russia from “Ukrainian” territory. As it stands, the West did not have genuine interest in implementation of Minsk 2, no, but also had no genuine interest in reigniting the war in Donbass and Crimea; there is a reason NATO practically accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
“Again, it is the Western alliance’s need for an enemy that informs this, on the surface, utterly irrational, irresponsible and destructive approach.”
I fail to see how “need for an enemy” explains anything at all; it grounds itself within nothing. And it is flat-out wrong on this beforehand who this enemy had to be. Muslims sufficed often.
“Yet, this graciousness is not granted to Russia of course, because it is, implicitly, in its nature, not defensive but the aspirant Tsarist Empire, Soviet Empire, take your pick. While there are certainly reactionary traditions and patriotic allusions to “Great Russia” utilized by the Kremlin, it does not dispel the fundamental reality of the dynamics of recent historical developments and Russia’s attempts to implement the Minsk agreement.”
Yes, NATO was the aggressor before 2021 – this is agreeable.. However, this does not explain Russia’s current actions in their entirety – Russia could have, clearly, waited 10-20 years and by then Maidan consensus would have collapsed, instead it has now permanently alienated the Ukrainian people from Russia and divided the people severely, while giving NATO unfounded ability to lay groundwork for propaganda against Russia and rearm themselves. There was no ‘need’ to this, ultimately – it was a contingent decision, and as such should be judged as such. NATO is unwilling to actually engage as an aggressor here against Ukraine at large – it is unwilling to prop up no-fly zones,13 it is giving Ukraine largely spares from their own military, and is continuing to trade with Russia on energy.14 Instead, its goal as large is seeking to weaken Russia in the future, with Ukraine serving as a way to ‘bloody’ Russia; whose sovereignty is at the end to be sacrificed. An expected outcome, obviously, but one which is a red thread – whose military aid pre-war was entirely useless in stemming Russian invasion at large, for example.15
“One view at NATO’s track record, whether in Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen etc. or the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, clarifies that the United States and NATO have been at the forefront of breaking all previous norms of international law and setting destructive precedents now exposed for the world to see in Russia’s war on Ukraine.”
If one goes on the level of ‘international law’, then Russia is also breaking all types of norms currently – be it recognition of L/DNR or the invasion of Ukraine currently. Explains not much at all. Communists should enter the level of class struggle – something, entirely left out entirely within the piece. This is polemic, not analysis.
“Even after Russia’s invasion, the only way out of this crisis, besides mass worker’s parties and revolution, is for the United States to finally take Russia’s security concerns seriously, to not increase collective sanctions on the Russian people, and to open intensive European security negotiations that will guarantee peace.”
Making appeals to bourgeois governments to act against their interest, and somehow to magically come to agreements with the Russian government is a dead-end; the only way such an event can come about is via mass workers’ parties! Only they can, at minimum, pressure the states to end their participation in imperialist aggression. Detaching the two is fundamentally incongruous.
“Furthermore, we should recognize that our US government’s and NATO’s strategy of global hegemony is an aggressive one which systematically threatens peace and cooperation among peoples, and which has killed hundreds of thousands in this century alone. We should campaign to disband NATO’s antiquated existence. For us, the main enemy is still at home!”
Yes, however, equally, call for an end of Russia’s imperial invasion. An end to imperialist powers everywhere – while the struggle against your own enemy remains primary. “International proletarian class struggle against international imperialist genocide is the socialist commandment of the hour.”
For communism,
SH.
- https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/1492485832753795074
- https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1799799/
- https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-60528746
- https://www.ft.com/content/74089d46-abb8-4daa-9ee4-e9e9e4c45ab1
- Imperialism shall, here, be defined as found within The Specifity of Imperialism. I.e. “Imperialism, to anticipate the argument, has to be broadly understood as a relationship of domination between states, rather than as a synonym for capitalist expansion.” https://viewpointmag.com/2018/02/01/the-specificity-of-imperialism/
- https://twitter.com/jacklosh/status/1498265545141071874?s=21; https://t.me/stranaua/27704
- “Separating Ukraine today would mean cutting through millions of families and people,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “Such a mix of populations; whole regions with Russian majorities; how many people unable to choose between the two nationalities; how many people of mixed ethnicity; how many mixed marriages that until now were never considered mixed. Among most of the population, there isn’t even a hint of intolerance between Ukrainians and Russians.”
- https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/putin-you-certainly-should-read-anton-denikins-dia-42032.html
- “When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.”
- https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1495402685008588803?s=20&t=-7QRc5-7v-eRm27fX528bg
- See Central Asia by Adeed Khalid.
- As Oleksiy Arestovich stated, he would send Russia a bottle of cognac if they would cease to recognize Minsk 2. https://t.me/eventsukraine8/208.
- https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/27/politics/russia-ukraine-no-fly-zone-linda-thomas-greenfield-cnntv/index.html
- https://twitter.com/mayadeenenglish/status/1497563732129550340?s=21
- https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/