Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Commentary on the Passing Scene by Robert Paul Wolff rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
My Stuff
https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0
Coming Soon:
The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."
Total Pageviews
Search This Blog
Philosopher's Stone
Blog Archive
-
▼
2022
(209)
-
▼
July
(17)
- A MARVELOUS LINK
- MORE COURSE PREP
- WELL, SO WE WON'T ALWAYS HAVE PARIS
- BUCKET LIST
- COURSE PREP
- 😉
- PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS
- MY ZELIG MOMENT
- THANK YOU, ACHIM KRIECHEL
- KEEPING ON KEEPING ON
- COMIC RELIEF
- DICKENSIAN WISDOM
- MEMORIES
- ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF
- I SAW IT ON THE TV
- I HEREBY DECLARE THIS CHALLENGE CLOSED
- LAST CHANCE
-
▼
July
(17)
About Me
- Robert Paul Wolff
- As I observed in one of my books, in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist. I am also, rather more importantly, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a violist.
135 comments:
Usually only the opening phrase is quoted, so it's nice to see the whole passage.
I'm a bit unclear on the 'best of times' and 'spring of hope' parts.
It may not be the best of times, but it's a delight to watch Boris Johnson crashing down.
“Nothing that we do, is done in vain. I believe, with all my soul, that we shall see triumph.”
Tolstoyan wisdom:
“Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly.”
Tolkienian wisdom :)
'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
I am still reading Theodor Adorno for his "reflections on damaged life" after World War 2, despite the character assassination essay by Gabriel Rockhill in The Philosophical Salon, June 27, 2022. Adorno was a practical anarchist who fled the Nazis and fell into working with the CIA in the confusion, and opposed both communists and capitalists from his grand hotel abyss. Thinking about World War 2 in a way that applies interestingly to the current Russian aggression in Ukraine in 2022, Adorno observed in Autumn 1944:
"The idea that after this war life will continue 'normally' or even that culture might be 'rebuilt'--as if the rebuilding of culture were not already its negation--is idiotic. Millions of Jews have been murdered, and this is to be seen as an interlude and not the catastrophe itself. What more is this culture waiting for? And even if countless people still have time to wait, is it conceivable that what happened in Europe will have no consequences, that the quantity of victims will not be transformed into a new quality of society at large, barbarism? As long as blow is followed by counter-blow, catastrophe is perpetuated. One need only think of revenge for the murdered. If as many of the others are killed, horror will be institutionalized and the pre-capitalist pattern of vendettas, confined from time immemorial to remote mountainous regions, will be re-introduced in extended form, with whole nations as the subjectless subjects. If, however, the dead are not avenged and mercy is exercised, Fascism will despite everything get away with its victory scot-free, and, having once been shown so easy, will be continued elsewhere. The logic of history is as destructive as the people that it brings to prominence: whenever its momentum carries it, it reproduces equivalents of past calamity. Normality is death." (Minima Moralia, p 55-6).
Charles Dickens in your starting quote may have been trying to capture the experience of being in tension with time, the wholeness of time as perceived by a partial view and as fragmented by moral crises into traumas, like individuals at sea without a steady foothold.
Noam Chomsky delivered another grim warning to the world community on the Internet recently. Here is the video link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv-glBvrrc&ab_channel=WinstonRiley
Chomsky's video message (not in person) starts about 7 minutes into the clip and he warns that the world should be very scared of a nuclear war due to current crises.
Why such a grim world, overflowing with damaged life and declining humanity? Maybe it is our fate to destroy ourselves due to our rejection of our moral autonomy and the failure of external authority to create it legally in their police states. Only the dead see the end of war, we the living go on immersed in our rough time and trying to understand it with dialectic, suffocating eventually because we have so little time to understand the whole of time and never get it right. Human beings are running out of time to solve the cycle of violence and political power that lead us into nuclear war and existential confrontation.
A tale of two countries. Our civil war has been smoldering along for 150+ years, after it officially ended. And, ironically, the Party of Lincoln is now fervently at work fanning oxygen into the embers, hoping the whole mass will catch fire again, so that—what? They can snatch power again? This isn’t good. I grew up in the 1960s and thought then that we had finally rid ourselves of the 1860s, but we (or maybe a solid 40+% of us) seem now to be slouching back to revivifying the Lost Cause. As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it a few days ago: if at first you don’t secede, try, try again.
Tony --
Always instructive reading and rereading Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, et al. They speak to our time as they did to their own -- revealing how little has changed. Great quote from Minima Moralia. I am struck by the "normality is death" phrase. Reminds me of a Roy Scranton NYT op-ed piece on why we can't return to "normal." See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/opinion/new-normal-climate-catastrophes.html?searchResultPosition=1
-- Jim
The most depressing thread I've seen in a while! (And it isn't even that long.)
I don't have any non-sports-related examples in recent memory of someone asking, "Why not us?" This is often the inspirational motto of the underdog team on the brink of championship. But one also hears the opposite question when personal tragedy strikes - I happen to think of the late uncle of mine who lived a modest and respectable life, but received a terminal cancer diagnosis, and reportedly broke down at one point in the process and asked, "Why me?" I imagine he most likely realized, or tried to realize but couldn't quite succeed (understandably), that the appropriate question would've been "Why not me?" - the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away and all. (There's a lovely Stoic version of the saying, too. I wish I could remember it.)
As with the individual, so with the collective. Eventually some generation of humanity will experience the worst. "Why not us?"
I also think of it sometimes as the species-wide equivalent of a teenage murder/suicide victim ("So much life ahead! Such promise!"), only with the funeral service taking place in advance of the tragedy itself. But at some point, analogizing is futile - there are "other people's" deaths, and then there's "one's own," as Heidegger might say. And yeah, I guess I'm not doing justice to the possibility that there's room to hope for (let alone choose) a better outcome - my feeling is that we're simply along for the ride. Hug your loved ones, savor the pleasures and privileges you're given for the time being.
Candide to Pangloss: "We must cultivate our garden."
Michael,
There several quotations from Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations which, I believe, reflect the stoic principle you are referring to. E.g.,
Think of yourself as dead. You have lived your life. Now, take what’s left, and live it properly.
Here is a rule to remember in future, when anything tempts you to feel bitter: not ‘This is misfortune,’ but ‘To bear this worthily is good fortune.’
Accept whattever comes to you woven in the pattern of your destiny, for what could more aptly fit your needs?
By the way, in the movie Gladiator, in which Richard Harris portrays Marcus Aurelius, at the beginning of the battled against the Germans, Maximus says to his soldiers, “What we do in life echoes through eternity.” This was an adaptation of one of Aurelius’ thoughts, “What we do now echoes in eternity.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpTc32sV1Y
Correction:
Maximus says to his troops, "What we doe in life echoes in eternity."
Isaiah Berlin on Stoicism:
"The doctrine that maintains that what I cannot have I must teach myself not to desire, that a desire eliminated, or successfully resisted, is as good as a desire satisfied, is a sublime, but, it seems to me, unmistakable, form of the doctrine of sour grapes."
Thanks for all that, Marc. I did a bit of looking, too, but am not quite sure this is what I had in mind... If it wasn't from Seneca, it was probably this -
"Under no circumstances ever say, 'I have lost something,' only, 'I returned it.' Did a child of yours die? No, it was returned. Your wife died? No, she was returned. 'My land was confiscated.' No, it too was returned.
"'But the person who took it was a thief.'
"Why concern yourself with the means by which the original giver effects its return? As long as he entrusts it to you, look after it as something yours to enjoy only for a time - the way a traveler regards a hotel." (Epictetus, Enchiridion ch. 11)
A side-note cinema gloss:
Gladiator is one of my family’s favorite movies. It is superb on so many levels – plot, character development, philosophy about dealing with adversities in life, the gladiatorial combat suspense, and, not least, the magnificent music score.
I recently watched the movie again with my now 27 year-old daughter (who, in my eyes, looks not a year older than 16, but has wisdom that exceeds my own; yes, I know, it would not take much.) At the beginning of the movie there is a poignant scene where Commodus, Aurelius’ amoral son, confronts his father, and tells him that he had virtues which his father failed to recognize – ambition, resourcefulness, courage, family devotion, … He then kills his father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIlChcIDzU
After watching the movie, for probably the 8th time, my daughter said that she blamed Aurelius for the way Commodus turned out. That he failed to show Commodus the love he needed, the love which probably could have altered his character for the better. That surprised me. I had never thought of that. I had always regarded Commodus as a warped, self-centered individual who was sui generis, and never thought to blame his father, who, after all, was renowned for his wisdom.
Boris Johnson has often been likened to Trump, for their rightwing populism, their dishonesty, their fake news, their lack of scruples.
However, I see that Johnson has resigned his post and that he has lost support of the Conservative Party. That is, the democratic system of rules seems to be functioning well in the U.K.
We all know that Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 election and induced a mob to storm the Capitol building. In addition, most of the Republican Party supports his obvious lies and fakenews.
Why does a rightwing populist such as Johnson obey the rules while one like Trump refuses to do so?
Is that due to differences in the U.S. and U.K. political systems or to deeper differences in their culture and society?
To S Wallerstein:
I take your point about the contrast between Trump and Johnson... But "the Yeti" did take his time about finally obeying some of the rules that applied to him.... He spent most of the three years he was in power disregarding them.
I wonder if people who know the political scene in the UK think that Johnson's immanent departure is bad for Labour's prospects in the next general election. After all, the Tories have been losing by-elections, probably because of Johnson. I bet that the hapless Starmer is sorry that he won't have Johnson "to kick around anymore" in the next campaign.
Cheers,
David Z
But with all the Donald’s numerous faults, his hair was better coiffed than Boris’s.
I never quite understood the Trump/Johnson comparisons--surely Trump would not be capable of the Tacitus-like pithiness of 'Pincher by name, Pincher by nature?' That is, I never understood them, until I saw this last month: https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1544933256251842561?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
s.w.
I think it has much (though not everything) to do w/ the differences between UK and US political systems. Parliamentary systems are v different from presidential ones.
Second, the situations are different. Johnson lost the support of the Conservative Party in a way that Trump did not lose the support of the Republican Party. Johnson's successor as leader of the Conservatives, and thus as PM, will be chosen by dues-paying members of the Conservative Party (there is no such thing as a "dues-paying" rank-and-file Democrat or Republican in the U.S. There are registered Dems and Reps, but no one pays dues to formally belong to the party). Also, Johnson was not denying an election result, as Trump did, rather he was caught in a series of scandals and lies mostly of his own making and realized he couldn't continue when almost 50 members of his govt resigned en masse. So v. different situations. And different personalities. But I have the sense that Johnson really had no choice, he had completely lost the confidence of the parliamentary party.
LFC and others,
The Conservatives abandon Johnson because they were fed up with his lies and scandals or because they perceived that he was now a losing proposition? That is, out of moral outrage or out of political calculation?
The Republicans back Trump because they sense he's still an electoral asset, I believe. They have utterly no morals when it comes to winning in politics. Which, by the way, is consistent with the U.S. policy of backing the world most corrupt dictators when they suit "our" interests.
So is there still some decency left in the British Conservative Party or does it function with the same amoral logic as the Republicans?
Thank you Robert Paul Wolff for allowing me to, for a greal deal, passively listen to your lectures. One day I may come back to them, but for the current time I believe my life will change immensely. Perhaps I will finish your autobiography one day, but I am not determinate thereof. I will simply watch and listen to what you will say herefrom. What you have created is at least something that will live long after you.
- Giovanni Tamburino.
s.w. creating a presidential system with fixed terms and the Electoral College (along with the senate) while hoping that parties could be avoided was a mistake. They just should have gone with a parliamentary system. The UK does need to get rid of FPTP.
Marc, Trump is basically bald.
I have always wondered how a domocracy can stand it when a king has to be elected every 4 years.
The dilemma with Trump is that after him comes another and one who is very likely to be far more competent in executing political power than Trump and his team of amateurs. Trump was still surprised by his election as president. The next one will bring an agenda of how to fundamentally change the country so that the "wrong" people are never in charge again.
The Democrats' best chance would be if another conservative party were to form. It would have to have at least enough political weight to take the last votes away from the "admirers of the Duce" that they need to take power. Maybe there will be a Ross Perot 2.0. Hope dies last. Either way, the question remains whether the "united states" can remain THE united states. Maybe the East Coast will apply for membership in the EU? This then changes its name in New Atlantis and one moves from Brussels to Reykjavik.
A young man attempts to kill himself using a machete. The family calls the police.
The police are again called to the home another time because the same young man is threatening to kill his family.
This year the father signs a registration card for his son to purchase firearms, which the father assumes the son is going to use at a firing range.
The young man purchases several firearms, including two assault rifles, kills 7 people attending a July 4th parade and wounds some 20 others.
The father denies that he has any responsibility for what happened.
Something that the major news outlets are not publicizing.
Highland Park, Illinois, has a large Jewish population.
The young man who committed the murders on July 4, who is not Jewish, attempted to attend a Passover seder this past April, in Goth clothing, and was turned away.
Given the prominent Jewish population in Highland Park, there was a high probability that many of the attendees at the parade would be Jewish. A shooter, firing randomly into such a crowd, would likely strike some Jewish victims.
Four of the seven people who were killed were Jewish, including the mother of the two-year old who was left an orphan. She was an Israeli, married to a Christian.
Coincidence?
s. wallerstein: So is there still some decency left in the British Conservative Party or does it function with the same amoral logic as the Republicans?
When did the Tories ever have any decency? (And I think the word you were looking for is "immoral," not "amoral").
s. wallerstein: I see that Johnson has resigned his post and that he has lost support of the Conservative Party. That is, the democratic system of rules seems to be functioning well in the U.K.
...
The Conservatives abandon Johnson because they were fed up with his lies and scandals or because they perceived that he was now a losing proposition?
Establishment media are pretending that Johnson was forced out over "scandals." Little or no mention is being made of what is almost certainly the real reason: The people who actually run the country (the financial & business elite) had had enough with the economic chaos unleashed by the Johnson administration's policies. The UK was already in dire straits at the start of the year. Johnson's Ukraine policies have made the financial pressures much, much worse.
from 22 March:
"Families are in for the biggest fall in disposable income since the Second World War, with households to be £3,203 worse off this year thanks to surging inflation and tax rises.
Britain’s cost of living crisis has intensified since the war in Ukraine sent oil and gas prices soaring and strangled an already stretched global supply chain....
A shock £693 rise in energy bills next month is likely to be followed by an even larger jump in October. Consumers will have to grapple with sharp price increases across the board – from broadband and mobile phone bills to food prices – as inflation soars.
An estimated £71bn could be wiped off living standards in the most dramatic drop since records began, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, a consultancy. More than half of this will come as a consequence of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, it said....
Britain faces the worst living standards crisis since the 1970s, the Resolution Foundation has warned."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/beat-biggest-fall-living-standards-since-1970s/
from 18 May:
"Chancellor Rishi Sunak on Wednesday night warned that 'the next few months will be tough', after UK inflation hit 9 per cent in April, its highest level in over 40 years and more than any other G7 economy....
With economic activity slowing sharply during the first quarter of the year, the UK economy is suffering its worst bout of stagflation — weak growth alongside high inflation — since the second oil shock of the 1970s."
https://www.ft.com/content/53999287-fb75-4da2-883c-bae1782354b9
Eric,
I select my words with care and so when I use "amoral", I mean "amoral", not "immoral".
Those conservatives whom I have know have their moral code, which does not always coinicide with mine, but I would not call them "immoral" for being conservatives.
Trump, on the other hand, appears to me "amoral", a person without moral principles, completely opportunistic and self-centered. He would have run for president on the Green Party if he had calculated that that was the winning option. Most of the Republicans have followed him down the path of abandoning most of their previous moral principles.
Achim Kriechel (A.K.): The Democrats' best chance would be if another conservative party were to form.
Well, what would Americans' best chance be?
If we can imagine a new conservative party forming, why can't we imagine a new leftist party forming? One strong enough to take votes from Democrats and Republicans alike and draw in support from citizens who do not ordinarily participate in elections?
Or is the best we can come up with more variations of Pied Piper strategies, like the one that resulted in Trump's takeover of the Republican Party and win of the White House?
(It goes without saying that it won't be enough for the Democrats, or any party other than the Republicans, to win. We need fundamental changes in policies, not just changes in style and appearances.
Don't forget that the person so many Democratic supporters put all their faith in in 2016, and who many still hope will one day win the White House, used to a director of Walmart, one of the most aggressively anti-worker businesses in the country.)
Eric,
No, Democrats do not hope that Hilary Clinton will run again. Her political career is over.
Regarding your wish/belief that a progressive alternative to the Democratic Party that you believe is too conventional, it ain’t going to happen in this country. Most Americans are middle of the road voters. What Trump pulled off in the Republican Party is not, I believe, achievable, on the left. As I wrote in my comment in the prior comment thread, it is going to take decades to undo the damage that Trump has done to this country, and it is not going to be accomplished by holding on to the dream that this country can become a progressive Social Democrat type nation. It will never be that. And continuing to aspire for that to happen, and insisting on supporting only candidates who share that aspiration, can only make the far right stronger and spell doom for our future democracy. You should come to terms with that, and not support spoilers who prevent a moderate from being elected. You and other progressives should have learned your lesson from the 2016 election. Regardless the valid criticism of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, she was the far better candidate, and refusal to see this has resulted in the debacle which we are now facing in this country, with an ascendant far right Supreme Court, the overturning of Roe v. Wade; the expansion of gun rights; the hobbling of executive agencies; and God knows what else in the ensuing years. If you insist on supporting spoilers in upcoming Presidential elections, you will help in hastening the demise of democracy in this country.
My first reaction was to emphasise, as others have done, the differences between the presidnetial American system and the parliamentary British system. But then Eric’s remarks @ 9:13 made me think again. And then I came upon this, which elaborates on Eric’s remark on the role of the establishment media in British political culture:
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/07/boris-johnson-resignation-media-press-conservative-party
Note (in relation to David Zimmerman’s reference to “the hapless Starmer”) this piece's claim, which I agree with, that “Were there still a socialist leader of the Labour Party, the papers would rush to rally behind someone more venal than Boris Johnson to see off the threat. Were there still a socialist leader of the Labour Party, in fact, things never would have got this far. Leaks would have stayed in their containers. Only since the threat of any substantial change has been neutralised in the form of business-friendly, picket-line-averse Keir Starmer is it safe to look for someone more ‘prime ministerial’ to take the reins.”
Note, by the way, that one of the contenders to replace Johnson, Rishi Sunak, was until recently a US green card holder. Whether he has done the necessary to legally avoid the US taxes the US iniquitously imposes on “accidental citizens” such as Boris Johnson was, I do not know. But as a billionaire, or at least the husband of a billionaire, I’m sure he benefits from lots of tax-avoidance advice.
Eric, in a comment above, blames "Johnson's Ukraine policies" for worsening Britain's economic situation.
The response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in terms of a conscious decision to reduce and eventually eliminate dependence on Russian energy exports, was pretty much a Europe-wide response, so I don't think it makes much sense to refer to "Johnson's Ukraine policies," all the more so because it's hard to imagine any British prime minister doing much that was different in that respect.
s. wallerstein: I select my words with care and so when I use "amoral", I mean "amoral", not "immoral".
also s. wallerstein: That's a cumpliment, by the way.
;-)
Ok, maybe I should have included an emoji with my post at 9:34pm so you wouldn't take it too seriously.
But all kidding aside, are Clarence and Ginni Thomas amoral or immoral? George W. Bush? The Evangelicals who are some of Trump's strongest supporters? Jerry Falwell Jr? For that matter, is Nancy Pelosi amoral or immoral?
No need to respond. This subject could fill pages of discussion.
LFC,
There are many ways that the British government could have responded to the events in Ukraine. The Establishment is unhappy with the ways that Johnson's government has chosen.
And his will not be the only government, in Europe or outside, that gets punished for the choices they have made in this regard. Biden is about to feel the pain in a few months.
*9:34 am
From what I've been reading, Eric is quite right in his version of the official British response to the war on Ukraine. There have been, I think, a number of comments on how Johnson has been particularly gung-ho on the matter as a way of trying to distract attention from his crimes and misdemeanours.
At his press conference announcing the Executive Order he had signed regarding providing as much protection as feasible for preserving the right to an abortion, Pres. Biden essentially acknowledged that the White House cannot codify Roe v. Wade. During the press conference, he offered an interesting hypothetical. A woman reports to an emergency room in a Red state which has prohibited performing an abortion at the woman’s pregnancy stage. The miscarriage threatens to kill the woman. Under the state law, the doctor can be prosecuted if s/he performs the abortion. The woman dies. Pres. Biden condemned this outcome as outrageous, but did not ask the following question: Can the physician be sued in a civil action by the woman’s estate for committing medical malpractice? The answer: probably not, the physician cannot be sued for failing to perform an operation which was illegal under state law.
Clarification:
The state law does no provide an exception to save the life of the mother.
Eric, systems with FPTP resolve to two parties. In the last UK elections the Tories got way less then 50% of the vote and got way more then 50% of the seats in Parliament. In the U.S. the Green Party has given us Bush and helped give us Trump. The Republican Party does need to go the way of the Whigs so there will be room for a new center right party.
Ah, presentism! I guess the Brexit that Johnson helped lie the UK into has nothing to do with the UK's worsening economic situation.
Marc, I'll remind you we don't have decades and in 1930 things like Social Security, the Wagner Act, WPA, and CCC weren't even glimmers in most folks' eyes. This decade will resolve things. Most voters aren't moderate they are low information, The solution for the right (helped by our failing constitution) was to create information silos. The Dems need to up their game - Joe did sound better this morning.
s.w., mob bosses aren't amoral, they're merely immoral thugs with better survival instincts. Capone used a baseball bat, Roy Cohn was Trump's mentor so lawyers.
Balkinization is doing a symposium on Adrian Vermeule's new book Common Good.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2022/07/balkinization-symposium-on-adrian.html
aaall,
The S. Ct. that FDR had to sustain the constitutionality of most of the New Deal does not currently exist. The current S. Ct. would likely have ruled most of the New Deal unconstitutional. Moreover, the American public is no longer interested in the kind of New Deal provisions which FDR supported and pushed through Congress. The current American public is complacent, with their smart phones, large screen TVs, social media outlets, etc. It is true that the immediate threat to our democracy is the 2024 election and the threat that some Red States may send alternate elector slates to Washington, but even if we survive that threat, we will still have to deal with the current reactionary S. Ct., and changing the S. Ct. will take decades. It is highly unlikely that Congress will add additional seats to the Court, or will amend the jurisdiction of Article III courts. The country is in for a for a long, drawn out battle which will continue after you and I are gone.
Eric @12:53 and alien @1:04
There's no pt getting into a prolonged debate about this, but in my view the options of Western govts in terms of how to respond to Russia's invasion were very constrained.
My sense of Eric, and maybe he's said this directly, is that he"s a Marxist of some kind who views politics through those lenses, and for alien (see the citation of Tribune magazine etc.)
I have the same impression. Marxists often pride themselves on their clear-eyed, realistic analysis of political situations, and to suggest that any Western govt cd have responded to the Ukraine war except by denouncing Russia and taking measures to sanction it is, I think, unrealistic. There are of course degrees and nuances, but the basic direction of the response was, I think, not up for debate.
Incidentally, why a Marxist wd view a kleptocratic, personalist autocracy of the Putin variety favorably is something of a mystery to me, but that's a side point.
P.s. In the early days of the war I thought there was a possibility that the U.S. and some European countries could have tried to facilitate a negotiated solution, but as it became clear that the main belligerents were, for different reasons, not open to that (though Ukrainian and Russian officials have always been in "talks" that have gone nowhere so far), the response of the West that in fact occurred emerged as the only really possible one, given geopolitical and other considerations.
Go back and see what I actually wrote @ 1:04.
Old red bating habits never die, it seems. Apply a label--Marxist--you and, you imagine, many others here will construe in a pejorative fashion, and that constitutes an argument? Similarly, a reference, as in my case to a prior reference to an article in Tribune (an analysis, by the way, of contemporary Britain; nothing to do with Ukraine), is supposed to constitute a refutation of some sort of anything I say? [For those interested, you can read a bit of Tribune's history, including its recent history, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_(magazine) ]
Then there are the equally pejorative non sequiturs: E.g. the presumption that, having cast opponents into outer darkness you can than assert on your own virtuous authority that you can shut off a line of discussion. And finally, perhaps anxious that pejorative allusions (and illusions) will not do the rhetorical job, let’s throw in a bunch of guilt by association trash. A “side point” indeed??? I expected better of you, LFC.
And why, by the way, do you continue to express your views on a blog hosted by a self-avowed Marxist. Aren't you worried someone someday will say something along the lines of "You can't trust LFC. he frequently appears on a Marxist blog."
Marcello Musto (a prominent scholar of Marx) has a recent interview in Jacobin magazine on Ukraine with three very prominent left thinkers. A lot of the points asserted have also been asserted in comments here. A striking feature of the interview is the collective pessimism: https://jacobin.com/2022/07/russia-ukraine-war-nato-expansion-diplomacy-military-aid
alien
If you re-read what I wrote, I think you will find that there is no basis for the claim that I see the word "Marxist" as a pejorative, nor for the claim or imputation that I'm engaged in red-baiting. I raised the question of why a Marxist wd have a favorable view of Putin. Raising that question does not constitute red-baiting.
Marc Susselman,
Gladiator is one of the greatest movies based on antiquity. But I just wish more movies based on ancient Greece & Rome would be made. We've got Troy, Clash of the Titans, the 300, etc. But these types of movies are mostly repeats. Gladiator was a newer version of The Fall of the Roman Empire; the 300 was a reboot of the 300 Spartans; it's obvious that Clash of the Titans was a reboot of the 1980s version. Let's see some new meat, Hollywood! If I had my way we would see: Hannibal crossing the Alps, Socrates' last days, Xenophon and the 10,000, the Battle of Salamis, Alexander taking Tyre, & etc, etc, etc.
My central point is that, contrary to Eric's statement, the options open to the West in responding to the invasion of Ukraine were few. The options were heavily constrained, for a variety of reasons. In other words, I disagree w Eric's position that there were many ways in which the West cd, realistically, have responded. This has nothing to do with red-baiting.
I have "known" LFC in this blog for several years now and he's not anti-Marxist or a red-baiter.
His forms of political analysis are not Marxist, but he's clearly on the left and has no animosity against Marxists.
One can reject Marxism as a general form of political analysis without being in the least anti-Marxist or a red-baiter.
Thank you s.w.
I was going to say something more, but I think for now you've said it for me.
p.s. I think it's actually good that there are different perspectives in the comments here. Otherwise it would be too echo-chamberish.
I do want to be clear on one point: I don't know exactly what Eric's view of Putin is. In that sense my concluding side point was perhaps unfairly phrased. I'll just withdraw it.
Although in previous threads I have strongly condemned Putin and Russia, and their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and have scoffed at the claims that the invasion was done to de-Nazify Ukraine, a friend who is very knowledgeable about international affairs, and whose opinion I respect, emailed me the following link today:
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2022/04/06/the-truth-about-nazism-in-ukraine-and-elsewhere/
The Truth About Nazism in Ukraine and Elsewhere
The role of US and NATO governments in fostering this old plague
I am trying to keep an open mind, but seeing the daily atrocities being committed by the Russians makes it very difficult.
LFC: When one is on the receiving end of such remarks as yours @ 2:34, as I was, they certainly come across as unwarranted and red baiting. As does your imputation that Marxists are Putin apologists. Some do seem to be so, though often enough, as I read them, they’re often simply trying to understand argue for the complexities of the situation. Besides, the war on Ukraine has divided many another political camp. (I’m aware that the suggestion of complexity is often construed nowadays as an indication that one is on “the wrong side.”) I’m grateful for John Rapko’s reference since it suggests the variety of views among those on the left. It’s a useful implicit rejoinder to several of the things you say, though I imagine that, as in past exchanges on this matter, true believers will find fault with everyone except Balibar (whom I haven't quite forgiven for his Althusserian associations).
LFC: I hadn't read what you said @ 5:04 when I posted my last. But at risk of being censorious I'd encourage you to reflect on what caused that unfair phrase to appear.
For my part, I agree with s.w. that one can be on the left without being Marxist. Unfortunately, however, the history of political conflicts on the left has left a certain residue. Of course, much of what is casually referred to as "left" today is anything but.
Well, I am watching the interview with Gabriel Rockhart in the link I cited above, and it is a real eye-opener and all very depressing, about the CIA's involvement in recruiting Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis in our conflict with the Soviet Union, Those on this blog who have disagreed with me, and have argued that the Western perspective on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not as clear cut as the media would have us believe appear to have had a valid point. The whole mess is very complicated.
Correction:
Gabriel Rockhill, not Rockhart. He is a professor of philosophy at Villanova.
Marc,
Welcome aboard the ship of skeptics about Biden's policy in Ukraine.
Marc, the host had a program on RT until it folded and the guest is a philosophy prof. (no offense to our host) not a historian who has specialized in the period so everything he says should be checked.
I'm less then four minutes into the video and the host has already blown off the Holodomor! The bulk of the interview is an endless rehash of anti - US memes that whether true or false are irrelevant to the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine. The Nazi themed founding of the Azov Battalion is an old story that has been widely covered as has Russia's role in the current resurgence of all the horribles on the Right - white supremacy, fascism, homophobia, etc.
This is a tell: At the end of the video the host carries on about a Jersey City school having an Ukraine dress down day and raising money for Ukraine. Well, it was a county wide observance, not just that school. Had he googled a bit he would have discovered that in the summer of last year (well before Russia invaded Ukraine) there was a ceremony at the Jersey City Hall celebrating the 30th anniversary of Ukraine's independence. Ukraine's flag was raised, anthems sung and speeches made. There is clearly a deep connection to Ukraine in that part of New Jersey. Our host only saw a sinister imperialist plot. Two straws is a fail.
The venue itself seems sketchy and they clearly have a pro-Russia POV on the war in Ukraine. This is from another article:
"However, a number of elements of today’s cultural scene in the West, particularly the dominant cult of individual self-expression, runaway liberalism that is turning increasingly oppressive, the erosion of family values and the proliferation of genders, jars with the more traditional cultural code of the majority of the Russian population."
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2022/07/07/dmitry-trenin-russia-has-made-a-decisive-break-with-the-west-and-is-ready-to-help-shape-a-new-world-order/
This is the sort of stuff one sees in far-right publications. I can't imagine a journal that was actually on the "left" publishing dreck like that.
Let me gently suggest that you mark you opinion of your friend's international affairs knowledge to market.
aaall,
Actually, there's a left that has so often been the victim of U.S. imperialism and the CIA that they reason the enemy of my enemy, Putin, is my friend.
I see that here in Chile. I participate in an online left discussion group and no one there believes anything Biden, the U.S. government or the U.S. mainstream media says.
The world is a complicated place and the enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend and may be quite sinister as is Putin.
International politics (and politics in general) tends to be a quite Machiavellian place and one generally should be skeptical of all claims made by state actors and by everything one hears and reads in the media, the mainstream media and also the alternative media.
The more I read about and observe politics, the less I know. One thing I do know, however, is that skepticism is always a sane attitude.
Marc Susselman @5:52,
I am astonished. I tip my hat to you.
(I have not watched the interview you linked to, but in response to Prof. Couture's recent comment, I had been planning to post some other material from Gabriel Rockhill this weekend or next week. Rockhill is a star.)
(Stating for the record—
The fact that I do not respond to every aspersion or characterization about what I do or do not believe should not be taken as an indication of my tacit agreement. Life is too short.)
I agree and that's why I hit google when something doesn't make sense. Much of what the US did in the name of "anti-Communism" back in the day was evil and counterproductive. Much of our current immigration problems are the result of our making Central America safe for United Fruit. Installing the Shah was a real genius move!
Folks on the left need to move past the knee-jerk. Russia and the developing fascist International is a real threat.
aaall,
I do not have to defend my credentials as a critic of Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I submitted several comments along these lines in previous threads, and endorsed your condemnation of the invasion in several comments. However, regardless that Gabriel Rockhill is a philosophy professor, rather than a history professor, and not having read any of the numerous authorities he cited, none of what he said came across to me as bogus or fabricated. You do not comment on what came as a revelation to me regarding NATO’s sponsorship of a project titled Operation Gladio, which was implemented in order to infiltrate fascist elements into various European countries and to commit false flag operations for which Socialist and Marxist elements in the society would be blamed, in order to advance the electoral prospects of right-wing candidates. If this is true, then it does call into question what NATO has been doing, and would give credence to Putin’s criticism of NATO. Do you have any information which debunks this claim about Operation Gladio?
I found the entire video very disturbing, and frankly, your criticism of it is rather simplistic. The situation is very complicated, and not, as you claim, just a matter of Russia invading a sovereign country without provocation. If there is any truth to Prof. Rockhill’s contention that the Zelenksy government has incorporated, and is being propped up, by neo-Nazi militia, this is very concerning. And I do not find just calling it right-wing propaganda as a satisfactory rebuttal.
My recollection is that there were many Nazis in Ukraine, but I suggest that is not of importance today. The US collaborated mightily with the Soviets to defeat Nazism. We then collaborated with former Nazis when it was believed to be in our national interest, e.g., Werner von Braun. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against any state, and that is exactly what Russia has done to Ukraine. I think that’s enough to justify aiding Ukraine.
Marc, this is all old news to me and Gladio is ancient history (there are books and books - pick your poison). Typical Cold War planning gone south in a few places. There is even an Archer episode from a few years ago (on Hulu).
I expect clandestine agencies to do this sort of thing and I would expect the usual problems. Recruiting anti-Communist clandestine guerilla groups in the context of post WW II, Cold War Europe and not sucking in at least a few Nazis/fascists would be a miracle. Considering that we're in Allen Dulles and J.J. Angleton territory, I'm not sure what this has to do with now.
All you have are unsupported accusations that parrot Russian propaganda on a You Tube video hosted by a dummy (when you begin and end your vid with misinformation, you're a dummy) that is linked to from a publication that is clearly pro-Russian. This is knee-jerk, ox cart leftism, if that.
My understanding of the Azov Battalion is there were initially soccer hooligan level far right elements involved in its formation but that was mostly cleaned up. The notion that Zelensky is "propped up" by some Nazi Cabal is ridiculous. Putin was ticked off because the Orange Revolution sent his stooge packing and messed up his plans, full stop.
My other point still stands: Even if Ukraine was a Nazi paradise, Russia has several times the population of Ukraine and all those nukes. Nazi or not Ukraine is no threat to Russia and Putin is still a war criminal for starting a war of aggression.
And I still would bet there are more Nazis in Michigan.
Sometimes it helps to scroll around:
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2022/06/10/world-controlling-bilderberg-group-meeting-discovered-by-journalists/
I would urge everyone who watched the Ukraine Nazi video to actually scroll around the "greanville post" and read some of the other posts.
https://www.greanvillepost.com/russia-desk/
I'm actually beginning to wonder if this is a CIA parody site - it's that bad.
Of all the rationales that Putin and his officials gave for his invasion of Ukraine, the stuff about "de-Nazification" was among the least convincing (not that any of them were convincing).
Even if the Ukraine government were an outright Nazi dictatorship, it would be illegal for Russia to invade without showing a direct imminent threat of the sort that would lend credence to a clam of self-defense under Art. 51 of the UN Charter. The UN Charter makes invasion of a neighboring country, or any country, illegal under almost all circumstances, and it does not a contain a clause saying "you're allowed to invade if it's a Nazi state." And since Ukraine isn't anyway, this is all basically irrelevant. Operation Gladio is also irrelevant to any justification of Russia's current invasion. Everyone knows that some (emphasis on some, not all of course) Ukrainians collaborated w the Nazis during WW2 and that there were Ukrainian guards in the death camps who murdered Jews there. Very relevant to a history of the period but irrelevant to the current conflict. That there are fascist-inflected militias in eastern Ukraine is also well known and does not justify Russia's razing the region to rubble.
If we're going to back to WW2, we might start w recalling, e.g., Stalin's calculated failure to support the Warsaw rising in 1944 (not to be confused w the Warsaw ghetto revolt of the previous year), b.c Stalin didn't want non-Communist Poles to be in control after the war. There is a succinct account in the first chapter of Menand's The Free World.
From p.19: By the time American planes were allowed to use Soviet bases for supply runs over Warsaw, it was too late. "After sixty-two days of fighting, 15,000 Polish partisans and some 200,000 civilians had been killed. The delay of the Soviet advance allowed Himmler to ship almost all of the 67,000 Jews held in the ghetto in Lodz to Auschwitz..., where most were killed.... Warsaw had had the largest concentration of Jews of any city in Europe. When the Red Army finally entered it, in January 1945, the streets were filled with dead bodies. Not a single living person, Jew or Gentile, remained."
(I've omitted some sentences bc didn't want to type so much, but the original shd be consulted for the fuller account.)
p.s. "without showing a direct imminent threat of the sort that would lend credence to a claim of self-defense"
And even then, its legality wd be very debatable, as one knows, e.g., from the debate over the Bush admin's "preventive" (or supposedly "pre-emptive") invasion of Iraq in '03.
This is interesting: We learn from the Greanville Post that Navalny and Zelensky are CIA tools while Putin and Stalin are sort of cool.
"Navalny's behavior is a direct continuation of those schemes and methods of the "past Cold War", so the CIA can support his attempts to destabilize Russian society, the article says. The use of so-called "non-state actors", that is, "activists", fanatics, religious cults, as well as political organizations, is a key aspect in the process of destabilizing various countries and securing Washington's economic and political dominance on the planet. So, George Soros transferred money to a variety of dissidents throughout the Eastern bloc."
https://eadaily-com.translate.goog/ru/news/2020/10/09/the-greanville-post-ne-tolko-cru-ispolzuet-navalnogo-v-svoey-igre?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
Of course, Soros get dragged in.
And finally Stalin gets his due:
https://russia-insider.com/en/history/lets-be-honest-stalin-was-less-criminal-churchill-truman-and-lbj/ri8303
My sentiments are generally consonant with those of aaall and LFC regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, I found the information about the CIA’s role in NATO, and their false flag operations very disturbing. I have to agree, to some extent, with s. wallerstein and Eric that there is more to this story than what the Western media are telling us.
The Greenville Post at least offered this stirring rendition of a mash mob performance of the Ode To Joy, performed in a Chinese shopping mall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lNaajK3Scc&t=386s
There is also this interview with Prof. Gilbert Doctorow:
https://open.spotify.com/show/6LnWQIEXXFdwG46QTWOcAz?go=1&sp_cid=9a8a6008a949950a747256607555078e&utm_source=embed_player_p&utm_medium=de
Yes, I know, the interviewer, Elliott Resnick, is a conservative Jewish commentator who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection and was fired from his post as editor of the Jewish Press.
Correction:
It is a Japanese shopping mall, not Chinese.
In honor of James Caan, and the 50th Anniversary of the release of “The Godfather,” my wife and I watched the movie last night. Despite its violence, the movie, which is recognized as one of the top 5 greatest movies of all time, is a remarkable cinematic achievement in plot, dialogue, performances and musical score. As has been acknowledged by many film critics, a good part of the plot is drawn on actual events involving the five New York Mafia families. The singer Frank Fontaine is based on Frank Sinatra, and his efforts to be cast in From Here To Eternity, a role which movie mogul Harry Cohn was refusing to give him because of his relationship with Ava Gardner. Which Mafia family is being portrayed in the movie is a subject of debate, but the consensus appears to be that it is the Profaci family, and that the opening wedding scene portrays the wedding between Joseph Profaci’s daughter and the son of Joe “Bananas” Bannano. The death of Moe Green, shot in the eye while lying on a massage table, refers to the murder of Bugsy Siegel, the man responsible for turning the Nevada desert into the Nevada casino resort. The man shot while being shaved in the barber shop is Albert Anastasia, sub-boss of the Gambino family. And many of the discussions on this blog reflect Michael Corleone’s remark, when his wife Kate says that politicians are not like the mob, because they don’t kill people, Michael tells her she is very naïve, that there is no difference between the politicians and the mob..
“Leave the gun; take the cannoli.”
Marc,
In Chile there's a weekly podcast by three guys, one a sociologist, another a journalist and the other a political activist called La Cosa Nostra and they base their political analysis on the book The Godfather. They analyze Chilean politics.
They hold seminars, which are fairly financially successful and one of them, the sociologist, has written a book The Fifty Laws of Power (based on the Godfather).
I watch the podcast every week.
s. wallerstein,
Have you seen the movie?
sure
Re: The Godfather. It seems I'm 2 degrees of separation from Ben Siegel, Al Capone, Meyer Lansky, and quite a few other folks.
Gladio always struck me as sort of a clown show. The U.S. did worse in Latin America and Asia. The blowback was far worse and continues to this day.
aaall,
Who do you know who knew Ben Siegel, Al Capone and Meyer Lanksy?
The stepfather (long dead) of a childhood friend (also dead and a story in itself) was involved in gambling, loan sharking, and prostitution back in the days of L.A Noir (1940s and 50s). Jack Dragna, Russian Louie, and Mickey Cohn (all long dead) and possibly Ben Siegel were associates and they knew everybody. Mr. Siegel is certainly two degrees and possibly one.
BTW, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is why things like Gladio happen. Execution, of course, is everything. Since the Orange Revolution and the 2014 invasion, NATO appears to have done a good job helping Ukraine to stand up a first class special forces operation:
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/putins-has-a-problem-ukrainian-special-forces-are-no-joke/
I am not, as far as I know, related to any mobsters. However, I know someone who is related to one of the most infamous of all of the mobsters, last name Buchalter, a cousin of Louis Lepke Buchalter, the head of Murder Incorporated, which provided the Jewish hitmen for the Italian mob, and the only member of the mob who was ever executed, by the electric chair in Sing Sing. I met the cousin when I moved to Canton, MI, from Ann Arbor and was looking for a new synagogue to join. He was the President of the Reformed synagogue in Canton, which my family joined. When I first met him, I started to ask him, very politely, if he had any famous, or infamous, relatives. He knew immediately what I was referring to, and admitted that they were cousins. He recently emailed me that he attended a wedding in New York and at the wedding was a descendant of Dutch Schultz, the mob boss of Newark, N.J., who got into a dispute with the Italian mob, which hired Murder Incorporated to assassinate him because Dutch Schultz was threatening to put a hit on New York District Attorney Thomas Dewey. At the wedding, Schultz’s descendant said he forgave Buchalter’s cousin. Upon receiving the email about his meeting Schultz’s descendant, I immediately emailed him back and apologized if I had ever said anything to him which offended him.
aaall,
I got a kick out of how you referred to Bugsy Siegel as Mr. Siegel. You would not dare call him by his nickname to his face. He hated that moniker, and had a notoriously bad temper, hence his nickname.
aaall and LFC,
I conveyed your comments to my friend who had referred me to the Greenville Post and Gabriel Rockhill, and below is his response (he is now an attorney, but was a philosophy major at the University of Chicago):
I will try to state briefly my reaction to "the reaction" that you got. The real problem at bottom is "the truth of the matter" and how it is established (or not). My participation in a Plato Zoom reading group during the pandemic years (particularly, the Theaetetus, Sophist and Statesman) led me to believe that Plato himself was rejecting "the big lie" idea of the Republic and leaning to a more pragmatic idea of truth, opposed to governmental lying on the behalf of "what is good for us." In this regard, Hannah Arendt's 1971 essay in the New York Review of Books, "Lying in Politics," re the Pentagon Papers and Vietnam War is really instructive. The companion to truth here is trust. As John Locke had it, trust is an essential basis for governmental rule and relationships. As for the USA's war with Russia over the Ukraine, the "truth" and "trust" are being hammered to death by the Propaganda War conducted by our own government against us. Where to begin? Why not start with John Mearsheimer, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Larry C. Johnson, Colonel Douglass McGregor et al. (all outstanding figures with formidable knowledge and experience) on the present war? That is what I have done, and I recommend it to anyone trying to understand this disaster. While they might disagree on the details, their convergence on the basic issues reveals the truth of the matter, at least to me.
Marc,
You may recall that a few months when I and others linked to and referred to John Mearsheimer, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and Chomsky, we were labelled "Putin apologists" by some (I don't recall if you personally used the term) and after a while, I simply gave up insisting because I don't enjoy being insulted.
One person (whose name I will not mention) said that I was overly sensitive when I protested at the insults, which led me to google "can you be too sensitive'" and to discover that there is something called a "highly sensitive personality" and that it is not considered to be a disorder or a pathology, just a personality type, which seems to describe me and so I learned a bit about myself from the situation and a bit about groupthink among intellectuals, but very little about Ukraine from the blog comments or from Professor Wolff's posts which echoed the mainstream media.
I'm happy to see that you now are willing to pay attention to sources such as Mearsheimer, who by the way blogger Brian Leiter, professor of law and philosophy at the same University of Chicago, considers to be a first-rate source of information on the Ukraine.
Could someone enlighten me as to what's missing in the mainstream media accounts of Ukraine? I read the Washington Post daily and the NY Times online. I assume they are "mainstream." What's wrong with their reporting?
s. wallerstein,
I am pretty sure that I was among those who criticized you for your views regarding the invasion and skepticism about the media. I may also have been the individual who said that you were being overly sensitive, I don’t remember. In any event, my mind is in a state of flux regarding the Russian-Ukrainian issue, and I have the friend to thank whose opinion I have quoted above, for that. I am still inclined to agree with aaall and LFC on this matter, but, as long as I am alive, I hope that I can continue to keep an open mind on issues, about which the truth, as in most things, can be evasive.
David,
The mainstream reporting is accurate regarding the daily events which are occurring in the war, but what the references which my friend alerted me to are indicating is that they are not accurately reporting the historical events which led to Russia’s antagonism towards the current Ukrainian government and against NATO. As s. wallerstein and Eric have been arguing, we are only receiving one side of that story, and it is more complicated than the Western media are letting on. I suggest you watch the Gary Rockhill video which I linked to above. Now, aasll essentially maintains that the video is bunk, but I think it would require a lot more reading on the subject than I currently have time to devote to the issue to decide this.
Marc,
I'm doing a lot of reading right now for a couple of book discussion groups and really don't want to take the time if someone could tell me in a sentence or two what relevance the history has to fact that Russia, contrary to the most sacrosanct principle of the UN charter, invaded another country. Does the history justify saying to Putin, in effect, "That's OK, Vladimir, go ahead and invade them?"
"aasl" is an unintentional typo.
Marc,
First of all, yes it's likely somewhat more complicated than the mainstream Western media suggest. Things are always more complicated. But that statement in itself doesn't get one that far.
Your friend writes (toward the end):
"Why not start with John Mearsheimer, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Larry C. Johnson, Colonel Douglass McGregor et al. (all outstanding figures with formidable knowledge and experience) on the present war? That is what I have done, and I recommend it to anyone trying to understand this disaster. While they might disagree on the details, their convergence on the basic issues reveals the truth of the matter, at least to me."
I know something about Mearsheimer, have read his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, and have followed to some extent his views on this matter. While there's no question, in my view, that NATO expansion should be seen as one element in the chain or sequence of events that resulted in the invasion, Mearsheimer's pinning the whole responsibility on NATO expansion is too simplistic, I think. (In saying this I'm not being original, but echoing probably a substantial segment of opinion among those who have followed the matter closely, or at least one IR prof with whom I'm acquainted whose views in turn are probably shared by others.)
M.E. Sarotte's book Not One Inch is what I would read on the recent history of NATO expansion if I were going to read something on it. I heard her interviewed a couple of times. I think she has a somewhat more nuanced view of the history than Mearsheimer does.
As for the others on your friend's list, Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector and Douglass McGregor is a retired army officer and basically a military analyst. Neither has specialized knowledge of the region afaik, and for that matter Mearsheimer doesn't either. I'm not sure about Ray McGovern and Larry C. Johnson. One needn't be a regional specialist to opine on this conflict, of course, but it would be nice to see at least one such on the list.
[continued next box]
I would distinguish between two questions.
(1) Was the Russian invasion in any way justified? The answer to that in my view is an unequivocal No.
(2) What should the West's response have been? In the very early days of the war, there might have been a case for the U.S. and others getting involved in trying to reach a negotiated solution. I'm not sure exactly what it would have looked like, and any such attempt would have been a long shot for sure. Still, it might have been worth trying. Right now, however, I doubt there are policy options other than the one the U.S. and Europe are pursuing. However, just before the invasion or just after, there probably shd have been an effort to find a negotiated solution, and the U.S. would have had to have been an active participant for it to have had some chance. But the opportunity, if there was one, was missed.
p.s. Since s.w., whose comment I just read, has mentioned Mearsheimer, I'll say a couple of more words about him. His magnum opus in IR theory, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, with a later edition with a new afterword), is a well-written and mostly (in my view) unpersuasive case for his theory of "offensive realism," which is a particular way of looking at the behavior of "great powers" that assumes that all great powers are "calculated aggressors."
Whether or not one finds the theory persuasive, it is striking, at least to me, how little the theory has to do with Mearsheimer's pronouncements and views on policy matters and on U.S. foreign policy in particular. While I'm not saying there has to be a neat, tight fit between theoretical commitments and policy views, when the disconnect between them is quite striking, as it seems to be in Mearsheimer's case, then something seems to be wrong. More concretely, and to take a relevant example, Mearsheimer afaik has never tried to explain how his view that NATO expansion was a mistake comports with his theory of offensive realism and with how the theory, in its normative guise, suggests that great powers should act. Now maybe the two are completely compatible, but it would be nice to see Mearsheimer explicitly address this, and as far as I know, he hasn't. Lastly, the fact that Brien Leiter finds Mearsheimer a good source of info on Ukraine is both unsurprising (given that among other things they are friends and colleagues at the same university) and, with all respect to Prof. Leiter, not that relevant.
p.s. For the record, I also think NATO expansion was a mistake. What I'm saying is that I want to see Mearsheimer reconcile his view to that effect with the 500 pp. book he published laying out both an empirical theory of how great powers act and a normative theory of how they should act. I guess one way to reconcile it might be simply to say that "calculated aggressors" shd act offensively only in an intelligent way where costs don't exceed benefits, and NATO expansion was not intelligent. But again, I expect a professional IR scholar with a named chair at the U of Chicago to respect his audience and readers enough to indicate how his theoretical views and policy views jibe or do not.
* correcting my typo on Leiter's first name: Brian not Brien
David,
As best as I understand the situation, the invasion was related to the history of the Dombas region, which Russia viewed as being controlled by Ukrainian militias which were offshoots of Ukrainian forces which collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. A large proportion of the Dombas population consists of ethnic Russians who are opposed to the presence of the Ukrainian militias. According to Gary Rockhill, whose expertise is Russian history, Russia’s objective is not to annex the Dombas, but to have its split off from Ukraine as a self-governing autonomous region. Whether this rationale justified the brutal use of artillery the Russians have been implementing is surely questionable.
Another source who is worth looking at is Anatol Lieven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKeCpNzSMY&t=4s
No, Marc, it wasn't you who called me "too sensitive".
David Palmeter,
No one here has ever justified Putin invading Ukraine nor do Chomsky or Mearsheimer or Lieven.
What they explain are the circumstances which led up to that unjustifiable invasion.
I have stated what I know previously in this blog and like you, I have other things to do, so I'm just not going to explain again what I previously explained.
Marc,
There was basically, as I understand it, a long-running civil war or civil conflict in the Donbas between separatists and those who want to stay in Ukraine. The presence of a long-running civil war doesn't justify Russia invading to support one side. Nor does the character of militias in the Donbas that favored staying with Ukraine justify Russia in invading.
You will recall that the initial main military move of the invasion was directed against the capital Kiev. Only when that initial offensive failed did Russian forces regroup and concentrate on the east. If the Feb. 24 invasion was all about the Donbas, then why was the initial military assault directed against Kiev?
The other point is that a war's conduct and means (traditionally called jus in bello) have to be judged separately or at least distinctly from a war's ends or aims or rationale or justification (traditionally called jus ad bellum).
In plainer language, nothing can justify Russia's conduct here, the indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets. Even if the invasion were justified in its supposed aim -- which it isn't -- but even if it were justified in its aim, nothing could justify the means -- the indiscriminate use of artillery. The two questions -- aim and means -- are distinct. Russian conduct has unquestionably violated the laws of armed conflict, even if it had a valid reason or justification to invade (which it didn't).
Finally, how does Mearsheimer's argument that this is all about NATO expansion jibe with the argument that this all about Russia not liking certain Ukrainian militias in the Donbas?
One other thing: In his initial speech justifying the invasion, Putin gestured in the direction of saying this was a "humanitarian intervention" because of how forces he didn't like in the Donbas were acting. More probably, however, the civil war in the Donbas has witnessed atrocities on both sides, and the claim of humanitarian intervention has a very high bar to cross before it can begin to be taken seriously. And the way Russian forces have conducted themselves here, and in Syria btw, makes the claim of a humanitarian intervention kind of laughable.
LFC,
All good arguments.
LFC,
The original narrative in the mainstream media and from several commenters here is that Putin is the new Hitler, bent on conquering whatever he can.
No one doubts that Hitler started World War 2.
My basic claim is that this war is more like World War 1. You can google "who started World War 1" and you'll find an article where the BBC asked 10 historians from different countries and while all agree that Germany fired the first shots, they all point to different countries as responsible for the complex chain of events leading up to that first shot: some emphasize the role of Germany and Austria, others emphasize that of Great Britain, others point to Serbia, others to Russia.
So too here. Putin is no saint and he fired the first shots, but he's no Hitler either.
There's a complex chain of events, including NATO expansion, the civil war in the Donbas which goes back to at least 2014, and of course Putin's macho idiocy which lead to the first shot.
who started World War 1
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26048324
s.w.
I don't think either WW 2 or WW 1 is a good analogy here, but that wd be another discussion and I don't want to get into it right now.
I’ve been of two minds on NATO expansion since it became an issue in the late 90s—and remain so today. The reason against it is obvious--it could provoke Russia. The reason for it is just as obvious--to deny NATO membership to countries between NATO and the Russian border is to tell Russia that NATO won’t intervene if it attacks those countries. Does any one question the rationality of countries between NATO and Russia fearing an attack from Russia? I don't think Finland and Sweden want to join NATO so they can help attack Russia.
The problem of Russian speakers inside Ukraine seems to me to be simply another occurrence of what Woodrow Wilson painfully discovered in 1919—that there no way to draw a border in Central or Eastern Europe that will encompass only one nationality or one language group. In any event, it is the border and there is the UN Charter, and unilateral military action is not permitted. It is well to keep in mind Hitler’s tender concern for German speaking people inside the Czechoslovakian border, that Woodrow so artfully drew, when assessing Putin’s concerns about Russian speakers in Ukraine.
s.w., you seem unaware of the extent that Russian is involved in the current world wide fascist movement. There is a really weird combination of nationalism, race, and religion that the ruling elite in Russia have bought into. Rather then WW I or WWII, this sort of rhymes with hordes out of steppe. In being able to explain what led up to the war Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Lieven, et al have clearly reached their sell-by date.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that Putin is entirely justified in his complaints about NATO expansion. Had the nations bordering Russia remained outside of NATO, he had all sorts of possibilities that expansion foreclosed. Also auto thieves would prefer you leave your car unlocked and the keys in the ignition.
Marc, your friend wrote this:
"As for the USA's war with Russia over the Ukraine, the "truth" and "trust" are being hammered to death by the Propaganda War conducted by our own government against us."
This is a hyper naive view of how proxy wars work. Like I wrote, you should mark matters to market. Oh, and "the" Ukraine?
LFC's take on the so-called humanitarian aspects is on point. Talk about destroying the village to save the village. Also if the poor oppressed Russians in the east were the issue, why seize Snake Island, blockade Odessa, and head West from Crimea?
"According to Gary Rockhill, whose expertise is Russian history, Russia’s objective is not to annex the Dombas, but to have it split off from Ukraine as a self-governing autonomous region."
This is laughable. That is not how "autonomous regions" work in the Union or Federation under Putin.
s.w., ??? Anyway, the Ukrainians call them "orcs." I don't get "fascist" or "racist," perhaps you would explain (racist is how the Russians have and currently treat the Crimean Tartars).
"Oh, and "the" Ukraine?"
Well fancy that. We're in a world where pronouns and pther parts of speech have now become weapons in ideological wars. Yes, we all know one is supposed to say "Ukraine" if you're on the approved side vis-a-vis that country and that to say "the Ukraine" is supposed to be an unintended signal that you're on the side that is not to be trusted and should be given no quarter. What utter rubbish!!!
"We're in a world where pronouns and other parts of speech have now become weapons in ideological wars."
Simple respect can go a long way.
"...and should be given no quarter."
Absolutely, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26jxHGbTZZw
Simple respect is indeded to be valued. I've been trying for many many years to get my American friends and acquaintances, some of whom claim expertise on the United Kingdom, to understand that "England" does not comprehend the entirety of the British Isles. But I don't take their casual ignorance or failure to learn to be all that significant.
For anyone interested in a professional and in-depth history of Ukrainian involvement with the Nazis, read Ch 22, "Hitler's Lebensraum" in The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Harvard professor Serhii Plokhy. Plokhy documents the extraordinary history of murder, war and genocide in Ukraine in the last 2000 years, and it appears that a very large number (between 20 to 40 million) of persons were wrongfully killed or forced into slavery in this location by various marauding empires and the Ottoman Empire white slave trade center in Crimea. The absolute horror of the history of the Ukrainian people explains to some extent why some part of them would join the Nazi movement in order to simply survive the crisis.
Plokhy writes: "In February 1941 [Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] made a deal with the leaders of German military intelligence (Abwehr) to form two battalions of special operations forces from their supporters. One battalion, Nachtigall, was among the first German troops to enter Lviv on June 29. The next day it took part in the proclamation of Ukrainian independence by members of the Bandera faction of the OUN. This spelled the end of German cooperation with Bandera's followers. The Germans, who had very different plans for Ukraine, turned on their former allies, arresting scores of members of the Bandera faction, including Bandera himself, whom they told to denounce the declaration of independence. He refused and was sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where he would spend most of the war." (p 266-7)
Both Soviet authorities and Nazis were forcing Ukrainians into labor or military service, and the millions of Ukrainians forced to serve the communist cause or the Nazi cause should not be regarded as enthusiastic volunteers, but desperate persons trying to save themselves by clinging to the most likely winner in the war. Putin's deportation of Ukrainians into gulag camps and other methods of scorched earth fighting are historically rooted in Russian and Nazi precedents, making him and his cronies into bigger Nazis than any desperate Ukrainian factions will ever be.
Gabriel Rockhill is guilty of overly politicized and biased reasoning in his essay on the Frankfurt School and Adorno in The Philosophical Salon, which simply re-states orthodox Marxist positions on methods of historical interpretation which Adorno and the Frankfurt School sought to get beyond in their neo-Marxist reading of the progress of history as regression and other matters. I have not watched the video referenced by Marc Susselman interviewing Gabriel Rockhill on Ukraine and the Nazis, but given his political agenda as exhibited by personal attacks on Adorno as CIA useful idiot, it ain't worth considering further. Serhii Plokhy is one of the world's leading experts on the Ukraine and his views should be used to correct the historical delusions and hermeneutical mistakes of ideologues such as Gabriel Rockhill.
Here is an interesting analysis from Noam Chomsky, June 16, 2022:
"So, criminality and stupidity on the Kremlin side, severe provocation on the U.S. side. That’s the background that has led to this. Can we try to bring this horror to an end? Or should we try to perpetuate it? Those are the choices.
There’s only one way to bring it to an end. That’s diplomacy. Now, diplomacy, by definition, means both sides accept it. They don’t like it, but they accept it as the least bad option. It would offer Putin some kind of escape hatch. That’s one possibility. The other is just to drag it out and see how much everybody will suffer, how many Ukrainians will die, how much Russia will suffer, how many millions of people will starve to death in Asia and Africa, how much we’ll proceed toward heating the environment to the point where there will be no possibility for a livable human existence. Those are the options. Well, with near 100% unanimity, the United States and most of Europe want to pick the no-diplomacy option. It’s explicit. We have to keep going to hurt Russia.
You can read columns in the New York Times, the London Financial Times, all over Europe. A common refrain is: we’ve got to make sure that Russia suffers. It doesn’t matter what happens to Ukraine or anyone else. Of course, this gamble assumes that if Putin is pushed to the limit, with no escape, forced to admit defeat, he’ll accept that and not use the weapons he has to devastate Ukraine.
There are a lot of things that Russia hasn’t done. Western analysts are rather surprised by it. Namely, they’ve not attacked the supply lines from Poland that are pouring weapons into Ukraine. They certainly could do it. That would very soon bring them into direct confrontation with NATO, meaning the U.S. Where it goes from there, you can guess. Anyone who’s ever looked at war games knows where it’ll go — up the escalatory ladder toward terminal nuclear war.
So, those are the games we’re playing with the lives of Ukrainians, Asians, and Africans, the future of civilization, in order to weaken Russia, to make sure that they suffer enough. Well, if you want to play that game, be honest about it. There’s no moral basis for it. In fact, it’s morally horrendous. And the people who are standing on a high horse about how we’re upholding principle are moral imbeciles when you think about what’s involved."
Here is the link to rest: https://chomsky.info/20220616/
Chomsky is extremely worried that we are sliding into an apocalyptic geopolitical crisis with three main hazards: destruction of environment, terminal nuclear war, and complete deterioration of rational discourse and diplomacy/civility in general.
"Gabriel Rockhill is guilty of overly politicized and biased reasoning"
Ironic.
I have not been following this discussion closely over the past couple of days, but let me just point out that Gabriel Rockhill is not a historian of Russian history. (Marc Susselman July 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM)
Rockhill is a philosopher who originally specialized in contemporary French theory, studying under Derrida, Badiou, Baliber, Rancière, etc, but, as I understand it, now looks at how what he calls the capitalist "intellectual apparatus" operates and how it came to be: "I wanted to understand the system of intellectual production, circulation, and reception that made a young, naive but well-meaning kid from Kansas study Derrida and learn all these sophisticated things about French theory, instead of being trained to understand the world and global imperialism."
"I remember reading [Derrida's] books in English, not understanding them, having to read Heidegger and Kant. So I did the whole history of Western philosophy in a very serious way. Obviously, I learned French; but then since Derrida ... dabbled in ancient Greek and Latin ... I studied those languages, too, because I thought, 'if this is the smartest person and he knows these languages, I have to know these four languages [French, German, Greek, Latin], plus English, and then know the history of Western philosophy'.... And I was very dedicated to that style of [classical] education, and I spent years in the national library in Paris studying all of those things and deeply believing in them."
He became increasingly disillusioned with those approaches to philosophy. He says that he didn't think of himself as a Marxist while in graduate school, and he didn't formally study Marxism because he trained during "the twilight of communist consciousness" in France and there were no classes on Marxism available to take. Despite that background he says:
"I think at base I was always a materialist. Materialism allowed me to test claims and find out what was true; and so I shifted into the historical social sciences... But I ended up getting a job in French theory [laughs] ... at a place that was known for Derrida scholarship—Derrida and religion, of all things...." He describes his shift in interest, to asking, "What were the material forces that made philosophy into the individual interpretation of canonic Western texts?" And from there he began challenging the fact that "what was on offer by the System, what I would today call the intellectual apparatus ... was not historical materialist analysis. What was on offer was a very trendy form of discursive idealism, in which you would learn sophisticated language games and different ways of speaking and you would constantly problematize, which is basically a form of skepticism. You say, 'Oh, but Chomsky says this and how does he know this?' You know, these types of things. 'What is justice? Are sure that that's what justice is? Because the Greeks said this, and Heidegger said this about the Greeks....'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOfsrm6cu8
I think his interest in Russian history is an outgrowth of his materialist analysis of history, imperialism, and capitalist propaganda.
I think he has said he is currently working on a book on fascism that will be published soon.
Prof. Couture,
You accuse Gabriel Rockhill of having a “political agenda.” Virtually every person who writes anything worth reading about international affairs, and everyone who comments about such matters, has a political agenda, including you.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, and certainly do not claim any expertise on issues relating to Marxism, Communism, Ukraine or Nazi influences in Ukraine, past and present. Everyone who comments on these issues on this blog offer someone as an expert whose opinion they respect, and criticize the experts offered by other commenters. Who is right, and who is wrong, on these matters. God only knows. I have read reports about Stepan Bandera which describe him as a virulent anti-Semite who implemented some of the most heinous atrocities against Jews, Poles, and Roma in Ukraine. Regarding Brockhill, in the following video he criticizes the Frankfurt School as essentially having been co-opted by corporate interest which funded his institute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzS4HZ9k5QU He does not sound like a rabid ideologue. But whether his claims are accurate, I am not in a position to either deny or affirm.
Bottom line, where the truth lies in all of this is anyone’s guess.
Well, below is my friend’s answer to David Palmeter’s request for a concise explanation of on what basis can Russia defend its invasion of a sovereign country, in violation of the UN Charter.
The short but surely controversial answer to the question is that there is a recent historical legal precedent for Russia's action: NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia) in 1998 under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It was based upon the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. Recall that the people of Kosovo declared their independence from Serbia (even though the territory of Kosovo had been part of the historical boundaries of Serbia for centuries), and the USA (NATO) came to the defense of the Kosovo, even though it was none of our business and no NATO country had been attacked. In short, there was apparently no justification for NATO's action. In fact, Russia opposed NATO's intervention in the Security Council under Article 7 and vigorously protested the two-week bombing of Belgrade, including the destruction of the Chinese embassy there. In short, Russia is relying upon Article 51 here, signing a security agreement with the Donesk and Luhansk Republics to come to their defense after they declared their independence from the Ukraine before Russia's invasion on February 24, 2022. So there is a legal basis for Russia's "invasion," which, of course, is separate from the question whether it is accepted or not. In the end, I think that the issue is caught up in the idea of "self-determination" under international law. It is hardly cut and dried. I have attached an article that sheds some light on the topic. In my view, there is a valid legal basis for Russia to come to the aid of these republics on the basis of their assertion of self-determination under international law. But to argue and explain that requires a lot more words
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/Sovereigntys-Other-Half-%C2%B7-How-International-Law-Bears-on-Ukraine-1.pdf
And with all due respect, aaall, my friend’s sell by date has clearly not expired. He is quite knowledgeable and articulate. That does not mean that I necessarily agree with him, only that I would not simply dismiss his views as nonsense.
Marc,
That someone would even claim that your friend, so obviously capable of original analysis, is past his sell-date says so much about how the commodification of mental processes has molded and framed many people's way of thinking, a process of commodification which the Frankfurt school, especially Adorno, analyzed and protested against with such lucidity,
all of which leads me to doubt that they "sold-out" to corporate interests. Rather, observing the society around them, they simply gave up hoping for and expecting a revolution of the kind Marx predicted.
Their analysis of capitalism commodification and reification was as rigorous and lucid as that of anyone else, simply they were not optimists.
Marc, the situation in the former Yugoslavia was quite different than in eastern Ukraine. I would urge folks to review that situation and compare. It certainly isn't any sort of a precedent for what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
"In my view, there is a valid legal basis for Russia to come to the aid of these republics on the basis of their assertion of self-determination under international law."
What republics? I believe Russia, Syria, Belarus, Venezuela and Nicaragua are the only nations to acknowledge them to any extent. That's pretty thin.
Drawing a comparison between what was happening in the Balkans and eastern Ukraine is Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch level historizing.
Prof. Couture wrote:
"So, those are the games we’re playing with the lives of Ukrainians, Asians, and Africans, the future of civilization, in order to weaken Russia, to make sure that they suffer enough."
This is upside down. Those lives are at peril because Putin decided to engage in an unprovoked war of aggression and also engage in all sorts of war crimes in the process. The faux "republics" in the east are a Russian manufactured ploy as is the assertion of widespread persecution of Russian speakers . The initial drive west from Crimea and the push to Kiev clearly demonstrate that decapitation and total subjugation was the plan.
It might make more sense to break the illegal blockade that Russia has imposed on a sovereign nation using international waters. That would help those Asians and Africans that Putin is using as starvation pawns. If one was actually concerned about Ukrainians one might be more concerned about their fate under Russian domination then the casualties they are willing to take preventing that from happening.
Peace at any price because nukes is the quickest way get a nuclear war. Folks like Chomsky are still operating with a Cold War mindset. The Politburo wasn't a personalist dictatorship.
Marc,
Your friend is mixing up two different things, and there are other problems. I'll try to be brief as I don't have much time right now, plus am typing on phone.
Art. 51 of the UN Charter refers to the right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack against a member state occurs (and before the Sec Council has had time to take action). The "independent" republics of Luhansk and Donetsk are not member states of the UN and thus Art. 51 can't be the basis for the Russian action, even if an "armed attack" against Luhansk and Donetsk had been deemed to have occurred.
The "responsibility to protect" is completely separate from Art. 51, and R2P (as it's abbreviated) is not in the UN Charter itself. Rather, it's basically an updated version of the old customary law doctrine of humanitarian intervention. *In theory* R2P could be the basis for Russia's actions, except the facts here, in my view, do not support its invocation.
There's a lot more that cd be said, but I'll stop there. I'm sure your friend is both smart and a good lawyer, but I'd respectfully suggest that, since public international law does not appear to be his field, he might want to look at a primer of some kind in that area. That said, there are a lot of gray areas in intl law and experts frequently disagree. There might be an intl law professor or jurist somewhere who cd be found to support the view that Russia's invasion is lawful, but I think you'd have to look very, very, very hard to find that person, if indeed you cd find them at all. (Though I wd not rule out the possibility that one or two American intl lawyers, who shall remain nameless for the moment, might have ginned up some justification.)
S.W., there's nothing original about the analysis, it's Russian propaganda pure and simple. It's the same as 15 of the 19 hijackers and OBL were Saudis and the Bush Administration lied us into a war of aggression on Iraq. Not spotting something that obvious is sell-by evidence.
Revolutions don't happen on the way down or at the bottom. Right neo-liberalism immiserated lots of folks in developed nations e.g. the so called "American Heartland" and the UK's Red Wall. That leads to reaction and a retreat into cultural conservatism (God, guns, gays, etc.)
Where in the world did "racism" and "fascism" come from?
LFC and aaall,
You are both missing the point my friend is making.
Neither Kosovo nor Yugoslavia were members of NATO, and Kosovo was not an independent republic of Yugoslavia. Yet the U.S. and NATO both used Kosovo’s declared desire to be an independent nation from Yugoslavia as a basis to intervene and begin bombing Belgrade. The parallel he is making seems quite clear to me, and your are both ignoring it.
These might be interesting:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/josef-zissels-yivo
https://substack.com/redirect/decd2ff5-04c1-475b-8640-92657b7f6650?u=4398293
https://cepa.org/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Marc, besides LFC's comments, the situations on the ground were totally different. Whatever was happening in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 wasn't in the same universe as what was happening in Kosovo. The best briefing in the world can't change that. Also I''m not sure we want to validate the NATO bombing as a precedent for future action by any nation. further, it wasn't the mere desire for Kosovoan independence. The Serbs were engaged is some really nasty stuff. Think of it like this: The Serbs were doing Russian - like military actions. That wasn't happening in Donetsk and Luhansk before the Russians invaded.
BTW, if some separatists in Alaska's North Slope Borough cried hard times and asked their Russian neighbor for help would Russia, by its lights, be justified in helping?
Marc,
This will be my last comment on this topic.
1) Serbia was commiting atrocities vs the Kosovars, which is what gave NATO the basis to claim a humanitarian intervention. If there were and are comparable atrocities being committed vs separatists in the Donbas, Russia shd have publicized them and clearly made the R2P claim earlier. Even when he invaded, Putin didn't explicitly invoke R2P.
2) Kosovo had a stronger claim to independent status than Luhansk and Donetsk, though I wouldn't put too much weight on this alone.
3) Russia's actions have to be judged on their own, bc every case is different. Putin can't just point to the 1998 NATO campaign over Kosovo and leave it at that. The NATO campaign was controversial and has remained so, and it can't furnish a justification for actions taken in a significantly different factual context.
4) Art. 51 of the UN Charter and R2P are two completely different things. I don't think NATO used Art. 51. I don't think Kosovo had been admitted to the UN yet, so NATO cdnt have used Art. 51.
5) Of course Kosovo was not a NATO member. NATO was not claiming to be coming to the defense of a NATO member.
6) Art. 51 of UN Charter has nothing to do w Art 5 of NATO treaty, and neither has anything to do w R2P. It's not like making a casserole. You can't just throw these different things into a pot, w.o close attention to the facts on the ground, stir it around, and declare that you've created something edible.
s.w., I read around on the right and Putin has a lot of fan boys. The Russian involvements favoring the right can't be blown off with a comparison to to loonier aspects of the professional anti-communist movement in the U.S. during the Cold War.
Mere Nazi use doesn't forever banish otherwise useful concepts. The Russian Army comes out of the steppes because geography and they seem to usually behave more like some invading hoard out of antiquity then a disciplined modern army.
For reasons I find the Stans, Silk Road, Mongolia, and Tibet interesting. I was thinking east not west. Race has nothing to do with anything in the concept.
Some were very glad of that "invading horde" back in the 1940s, aaall. But that aside, I think what some of us find problematical, I certainly do, is your unalloyed assertiveness about matters which you likely very well know are a matter of intense, quite multi-faceted political and historical debate. Some indication that you were aware that reasonable, knowledgeable people take a different view of things than you do might make your case more palatable to those in the undecided middle and would certainly arouse much less antagonism among those who disagree with you.
Meantime, with Democrats like these, . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-campaign-how-ex-obama-aides-helped-sell-firm-to-world
Alien, when I was a kid (1940s -50s) a friend' parents used to say, "I feel like the Russian Army marched..." if they weren't feeling well or whatever. They weren't fascists, they just heard stories from returning GIs. There's a reason regular German troops made extreme efforts to surrender to allied troops. That the Red Army was on the right side is wholly apart from how it conducted itself. Budapest, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine - I see a trend, your mileage apparently varies. (And a well organized and disciplined force doesn't manage to get over a dozen general officers killed in a few months, forget the O4 - 6s).
"Reasonable" people can often be wrong. Iran. Vietnam, Central America, Iraq were the products of reasonable people. Not one of the reasons advanced to explain the Russian invasion of Ukraine holds up to rational analysis. A dictator in thrall to an off the wall messianic view of Russia's role in the world acted out, full stop. I can understand that some folk's priors make that difficult to impossible for them to accept but that's not my problem.
Anon, both parties do the revolving door thing. It should be illegal.
My friend’s response. The bottom line, I believe, is that perspective of the truth depends on whose ox is getting gored. We could go around in circles on this subject indefinitely.
Marc, I think that all of these responses can be rebutted on the basis of self-determination under international law, which I am not prepared to offer at this time, at least in a thorough way. What is interesting is that Kosovo invoked self-determination as the basis of its succession from Yugoslavia/Serbia, and its application to the EU is pending. What is so different about Kosovo and the independent republics of Donesk and Luhanst? It is almost impossible to see, at least by anyone trying to be objective about it. Also, the respondents ought not to forget that a war started in the Eastern Ukraine after the USA, once again, engineered "regime change" in Kiev on February 22, 2014. That is historical fact. When Victoria Nuland said, "Fuck the EU," what she really was saying was "Fuck Russia." Over 14,000 people (mostly civilians of Russian heritage) died in those republics as a result. I suppose they do not count as people.
Another historical fact: the Ukrainian forces, equipped with NATO armaments and CIA and British military training, were prepared to attack these republics and the Crimea this spring. The Russians beat them to it. In short, a war has been going on for 8 years, if anyone bothered to notice. By the way, the USA's overthrow of the legitimate government of the Ukraine was surely "interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation," in violation of international law, if anyone cared to observe it. I can go on at length, but so can others. The best thing to do at this point is sit down and talk about how to end this stupid war and work out how to be friends, or at least not enemies; how about trade and commerce once again, the unfreezing of assets and lifting the boycott, and a little respect for "the rule of law?" Fat chance . And hardly the fault of Russia.
Apropos of the above discussion offering different perspectives on the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and what, in fact, is the truth, I rewatched The Godfather II last night. One of the main themes of the Godfather movies, aside from the exercise of raw power and loyalty to one’s family and friends, is that where the truth lies is not always what it appears. In Godfather II, which opens with the celebration of the Corleone family’s move to Nevada, one of the Corleone family’s capos still operating in New York, Frank Pantangeli, comes to the celebration complaining about the Rosetti brothers, henchmen of Hyman Roth (aka, Meyer Lansky, played by Lee Strasberg), are trespassing into his territory, and he wants permission from Michael Corleone to retaliate. Michael Corleone refuses to give him permission, because he is in the process of finalizing a deal with Roth to open casinos in Havana, with the approval and cooperation of Batista. Pantangeli leaves the meeting disgruntled. That night, after the celebration, Michael Corleone’s home is strafed with gunfire - by whom? Michael’s immediate conclusion, or at least that is what he tells people, is that the attack was conducted by Pantangeli, in retaliation for Michael’s refusal to allow him to attack the Rosetti brothers.
Actually, Michael is convinced that the attack was orchestrated by Roth, in order to drive a wedge between Michael and Pantangeli. (How does he conclude this? The movie does not really say – it appears to be instinct, the same instinct for understanding human nature displayed by his father, when Don Corleone told him that whoever approaches him about having a meeting with Don Barzini is a traitor, and is setting Michael up to be assassinated. Armed with this advice, Michael strikes first.) The Rosetti brothers (modeled, I believe, after the actual Gallo brothers, capos in the Colombo crime family) then propose to call a truce with Pantangeli and offer to meet to discuss terms. At the meeting, Pantangeli is attacked by an assassin, hired by Roth, using a garotte, who whispers into his ear, “This is from Michael Corleone.” Pantangeli survives the attack, and believing that Michael Corleone was his assailant, decides to testify and spill the beans to the McClellan Committee investigating organized crime in the U.S., during which the terms Mafia and Costra Nostra are disclosed (i.e., the Valachi papers). As it turns out, Michael correctly sees through Roth’s charade and pulls out of the Havana deal, just as Fidel Castro’s troops move into Havana. During one of the best scenes in the movie, Michael confronts Roth and asks him who ordered the hit on Pantangeli. Rather than answer the question, Roth tells Michael about a friend of his, Moe Green (aka, Ben “Bugsy” Siegel) who was responsible for the creation of Las Vegas, and was killed, shot through the head, by one of Michael’s hired guns. Roth says, “When he was killed, I didn’t ask, who gave the order. I said to myself, ‘This is the business we’ve chosen.’” Later, Michael has Roth assassinated at an airport, returning to the U.S. after being refused admission to Israel. (A fiction – Meyer Lansky was never assassinated.)
Godfather II can be seen as a parable about international relations – the world is a gangland of competing forces. While not as lethal, anyone who has ever been involved in office politics, where it is often difficult to determine whose one’s friends and enemies are, as I have, has had the disquieting experience of not knowing whom to trust or what the truth is. Regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, LFC and aaall have one version of the truth. My friend, who is also quite knowledgeable and intelligent, has a different version.
here are some ukraine info/analysis links
Marc,
I wrote a long comment and lost it, so I'll be brief. And I didn't wade through your exposition of Godfather 2, just the beginning and end of your comment.
I'm sure your friend is highly intelligent; that's not the issue. More relevant is the question of what his areas of knowledge are. I wouldn't venture an opinion on, for example, how Michigan courts have interpreted the law of [fill in the blank], because I don't know anything about that. Someone who thinks that Art 51 of the UN Charter figured in NATO's Kosovo campaign just doesn't know very much about intl law. It has nothing to do with intelligence or how well-read and thoughtful and reflective one is; rather with knowledge of a specific subject. He is of course completely entitled to his perspective, and others are entitled to consider how well grounded it is. And since he's not participating in this discussion directly, it's very difficult to have a productive exchange.
And I broke my previous statement that that wd be my last comment. My bad.
https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/means-of-destruction
I only just now saw your friend's response as conveyed by you at 5:35 a.m. Was the 2014 "color revolution" US-engineered regime change or basically a popular uprising?
Re self-determination and secession: difficult questions. I wd be interested to see intl law experts' analysis. There's prob some at an intl law blog I haven't looked at in a long time. And soon it will prob start coming out in the journals, like AJIL.
I read down in that Wolfgang Strieck (sorry I forget the spelling) piece in Sidecar to his ref to what "the West considers to be international law," which conveniently ignores the facts that: (1) France and Germany, presumably members of "the West," did not go along w the invasion of Iraq, and (2) most intl lawyers considered the invasion of Iraq illegal.
I guess when you're writing for Sidecar you can assume your readers don't remember that the 2003 invasion of Iraq split "the West" and caused much handwriting about that at the time.
Correction: handwringing not handwriting
I was about to say you should have kept the “handwriting” as well as the “handwringing” until I recollected that hardly anyone handwrites anymore. That’s something about which I feel some regret, since I used to pride myself on my handwriting. But as my shaky hand syndrome has worsened over the years, even I can no longer read my own handwriting, so I’m grateful for the technical assists now available.
Wrt your remark at 10:07 AM: It seems to me that the issues of self-determination and secession will not necessarily be well clarified by international legal analysis since they always (?) emerge as political issues where, on the one hand, there are those who are seeking to break free from some particular legal system, while on the other hand there are those who are insistent that the prevailing legal order must be maintained. The ongoing conflicts over independence for Catalonia and Scotland I think make it very clear that the issues are primarily political, not legal, and that the outcomes of these conflicts will not be determined, except marginally, in a legal fashion. (Rather, one might say, as the break-up of the Soviet Union was determined. Rather, one might hazard, as the break-up of the USA may be determined.)
I recognise that that perhaps doesn’t necessarily touch on the question of international law as you wanted to raise it. But I think one then has to contemplate that the standing of international law doesn’t function in the international arena in the way domestic law functions within the domestic arena. To view them in the same light might be rather like trying to understand a national economic system as just household economy writ large?
PS. I do think Wolfgang Streeck is a notable German intellectual worth attending to.
Anon
I agree with some of that. Have to leave it there for now.
Here's a link to a careful discussion of self-determination in a somewhat different context
"Another historical fact: the Ukrainian forces, equipped with NATO armaments and CIA and British military training, were prepared to attack these republics and the Crimea this spring. The Russians beat them to it."
Now we have yet another justification. Since that would be Ukraine merely reclaiming that part of its sovereign territory that was illegally invaded, what's the problem?
The claim is bogus because Ukraine in February didn't have the necessary weapons to accomplish that - certainly not with Crimea. Their artillery was Soviet era 152 mm and primitive rocket artillery. It would have been nice if NATO had actually provided the proper weaponry years ago but that didn't happen. It's only recently that good stuff like the M777s, Caesars, Archers, HIMARS, etc. have been provided. At least they had the Bayraktars.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation that wanted and has the right to have the best military it can stand up. Since wheel reinventing is somewhat inefficient that means seeking the best training and NATO is world class and for Ukraine right next door. Perhaps someone will explain why Ukraine should have maintained their corrupt, poorly trained, poorly equipped, post Soviet force instead of upping their game? CIA and the Brits??? Evil, scary! Sort of a far,far left incantation that shuts down discussion, I suppose.
Which gets us to this: The Ukrainians have twice made it clear that they prefer to associate with the EU and that they prefer democracy to being a Russian puppet state - the Orange Revolution and, a few years later the Euro-Maidan Revolution. As I recall the EU helped mediate a settlement and the US supported the folks wishing change. "Engineering" didn't happen.
There aren't different truths, just the Ukrainians wishing X and Putin wishing Y. All the "truths" or "lies" are secondary. As in threads above it boils down to which side one is on.
Since at lease from the time of good King Cyrus going beyond the gangster model of international relations has been a goal of at least some of our species. Putin and Trump represent some backsliding.
Unlike in the film, Lansky appears to have signed off on the hit.
" As in threads above it boils down to which side one is on."
Some of us haven't perhaps taken a side, though I recognize that to say so is taken by the committed to indicate that one has taken the wrong side. It's rather like the way non-voters are taken by the decidedly partisan to have supported those they are opposed to.
Anon, sometimes the whole world is Harlan County.
Post a Comment