To: Detroit/Seattle
Workers' Voice mailing list
June 20, 2022
by Pete Brown, Detroit Workers'
Voice
The war in Ukraine is a crisis for the radical left. Given Russia’s aggression against a smaller, weaker nation, one would think anti-imperialist and anti-war activists would naturally oppose it. But many groups are hesitant to take such a stand, and some even oppose Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s aggression. They whine about “context” and insist that “you must understand the historical background” -- and then they ignore the historical context of Russian aggression. The war has generated sharp debate between leftist groups. Trotskyists are split on the issue; some, such as WSWS, are solidly pro-Kremlin, while others like BAMN condemn the invasion. The CPUSA’s newspaper Peoples World says it doesn’t agree with the invasion but then repeats Putinist propaganda against Ukraine and vehemently opposes arms for Ukraine. And there is sharp disagreement in one of the more radical online journals, CounterPunch, as shown below:
After the war’s first month the editor of CounterPunch, Jeffrey St. Clair,
made a pungent statement against those trying to justify Russian
aggression. (1) St. Clair’s statement doesn’t support Ukrainian
resistance, instead voicing a general condemnation of war. But it’s
very sharp against those who try to justify Putin’s invasion. Referring
to “the online claque that calls itself the anti-imperialist left”, St.
Clair tells the truth when he says, “One doesn’t refer to them as a
‘movement’, since they rarely move, except from Twitter to Facebook,
Instagram to Parler. You won’t find them on the street corner with the
Quakers and Catholic workers protesting the war.”
St. Clair goes on: “It’s a weird kind of anti-imperialism that writes amicus briefs for a regime [Putin’s] that Lenin and Trotsky would have been toiling night and day to overthrow. Of course, the briefs themselves never dig too deep before hitting the bedrock of their own absurdity. Instead, they function as a kind of meme factory, endlessly [reproducing] the shallow tropes of the day, such as ‘false flags over Ukraine.’ In a month, the Ukraine war has yielded up so many allegations of ‘false flags’ that the assertions themselves begin to seem like false flags: the bodies on the streets of Bucha were staged; the bombed Mariupol theater was being used by the Azov battalion; the Kramatorsk train station was hit by Ukrainian rockets. And on and on …"
St. Clair notes that, in its justifications for Putin’s invasion, this “weird anti-imperialism" imitates the U.S. State Department’s justifications for aggression:
“Much of what advertises itself as the ‘anti-imperialist’ left operates as little more than a mirror image of the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy, a propaganda mill to rationalize atrocities and war crimes, which is coldly indifferent to the people who’d been living in tenements Russian airstrikes turn to rubble, writing them off, when they mention them at all, as Nazis or Nazi sympathizers or the families of Nazis or the human shields of Nazis. The Russian press these days even talks of ‘passive Nazis’....”
This is powerful and truthful stuff. Further:
“You get the drift; you’ve heard it before from the likes of Ari
Fleischer and Ned Price, every time a wedding party is droned or a baby
milk factory is bombed or humanitarian workers are killed in a missile
strike. Blame your enemy for your atrocities and declare those you’ve
killed or maimed unworthy victims: terrorists or Nazis or infiltrators.
Proclaim that you were forced to ‘intervene’ (aka, invade) because of
the threat of yellowcake uranium shipments or aluminum tubes or mobile
chemical weapons vans or biolabs. Everyone knows the script by now and
they’re all playing from the same one with minor variations on the
theme.”
St. Clair says this “weird anti-imperialism" doesn’t even pretend to base itself on opposition to capitalism; they just go with the flow of big powers:
“The Left – especially the international Left – used to see capitalism as the unifying threat, the systemic enemy. But you rarely hear it talked about these days, even though its fangs are sharper than ever. Perhaps that’s because the old socialist powers have cashed it in and joined the mad scramble to commodify all that remains. Communist China now boasts 1002 billionaires, 400 more than the cutthroat capitalists in the U.S. To paraphrase Mao: who’s running with the imperialist dogs now?”
Answering those who rant endlessly about “the context” of NATO expansion, St. Clair says:
“Yes, we know NATO is bad news. I’ve been writing about NATO’s
belligerent and criminal actions for nearly 40 years now, including
weekly dispatches on its wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. …
And yet. While the war in Ukraine had many co-authors, it only had one
agent.”
As to this one agent:
“Putin may have been tempted, lured, baited or even duped into invading Ukraine. … But he alone pulled the trigger. His tanks crossed the border. His bombs destroyed city blocks, hospitals, train depots. His army is occupying foreign ground. Excuses can be made. But they only mitigate his crimes, they don’t exculpate them.”
And St. Clair repeats:
“In rationalizing Putin’s crimes in Syria and Ukraine, the anti-imperialist left in effect validates America’s own in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.”
One of the favorite rationalizations for Putin’s invasion is the presence of some fascist elements in Ukraine. Thus, the endless repetition of “Azov, Azov, Azov.” But St. Clair answers:
“Are there neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Sure. Just as there are in Russia,
France, Sweden, the UK and the U.S. The same as there are far right
nationalists in Hungary, Brazil, Poland and Israel.
“I live in Oregon. There are Nazis of the neo- and retro- varieties next door in Idaho. Should the governor of Oregon send the National Guard across the Snake River to wipe them out …? Should suspected Nazis be shot on sight, like the family of Randy Weaver?”
Good questions. St. Clair ends his article with another: “Where does the killing end?” As mentioned, the article does not touch the issue of supporting Ukrainian resistance. The tone of St. Clair’s article is pacifist. But he does a good job skewering those who sympathize with Russia, the “underdog lesser imperialist”.
Writers for
CounterPunch are not uniformly denouncing Putin’s war, however. Some support Putin’s
war aims while at the same time denouncing his aggression. They want
the West, Ukraine, Zelensky, China, everyone in the world to agree on
giving Putin what he wants; they just want it done peacefully, with no
one hurt. Why should there be all this violence? -- Just give Putin
what he wants! And if the Ukrainian people don’t agree – who gives them
a right to vote?
A good example is Paul Street, who writes a long article in the April 15 issue of CounterPunch. (2) Like many another leftist in America, Street begins with a long list of U.S. imperialist crimes – Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc., expressing his deep concern for American leaders’ moral consistency. How dare they condemn Putin’s aggression when they have blood dripping from their hands? (But wait – yes, American political leaders are hypocrites, but does that condemn everyone on the left? Don’t we have a responsibility to give our own analysis?)
Anyway, after going through this list, Street insists this is not
mere “what-about-ism.” No, he also condemns Putin’s aggression. He then
exercises his vocabulary against Putin: he’s a fascist, authoritarian,
etc., and the violence in Ukraine is terrible. But he doesn’t forget to
add: Putin’s body count is not nearly as great as that of the U.S.
imperialist leaders! Thus, Street’s insistence on moral equivalence
comes down to counting bodies.
OK, so what’s the solution? It’s obvious: give Putin what he wants! Like an unruly child throwing a tantrum and demanding a lollipop before dinner -- give him the lollipop! Street poses as a sophisticated foreign-policy expert here, calling this the brilliant strategy of “providing an off-ramp" to the unruly fascist aggressor. After pages denouncing imperialist foreign policy, Street becomes the realpolitik expert, advising the Biden administration how to carve up Ukraine to Putin’s satisfaction. American foreign policy is no good, everyone involved drenched in the blood of its victims; but now he turns to an official of the U.S. State Department, Ambassador Chas Freeman, as the expert on off-ramps. He cites Mr. Freeman’s authority on the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15, which he says gave Europe a century of peace. Street thinks the main lesson of the Congress of Vienna is compromise: European powers learned that compromise could achieve peace; therefore, other countries should compromise with Putin and give him what he wants. We can’t make poor Mr. Putin look bad in this morass he’s created. No, we must help him out.
The Congress of Vienna is notorious for ushering in a period of
reaction as the big powers of the day – Russia, Prussia, Britain,
Austria, and France (under a restored Bourbon king) – cooperated in
trying to suppress movements for democratization and national
self-determination. But did this effort bring about peace? NO: the big
powers continued to squabble among themselves in Europe -- the Crimean
War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War -- as well as rivalry and
squabbles in Asia and Africa. Nor could it hold back forever demands
for democracy and national rights, as independence struggles broke out
in Greece, Italy, Hungary, and other nations. Revolution broke out in
France in 1830, and Europe as a whole was shaken by revolution in 1848.
National movements against the reactionary tsarist empire emerged in
Poland as well as other areas – Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc. European
powers also faced anti-imperialist movements emerging in Asian
countries such as China, India, and Iran. It’s ridiculous to consider
the Congress of Vienna as bringing about a period of peace, though it
did bring a short period of extreme reaction, international cooperation
among secret police agencies of the big powers, and doomed attempts to
keep in power ancient, decrepit monarchies.
Street calls for immediate negotiations on Ukraine – not negotiations WITH Ukraine, mind you. Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine don’t matter, since Ukraine doesn’t matter; all that counts is big-power diplomacy. Street tells us Russia’s war aims are perfectly clear, and fine with him: neutrality for Ukraine, recognition that Crimea belongs to Russia, and “readjusted sovereignty” for eastern Ukraine (the Donetsk and Luhansk “peoples republics”). Ukraine has already offered neutrality, and as for Crimea and eastern Ukraine – well, Putin wants them, and he’s acting unruly, so -- give them to him! And if Zelensky doesn’t agree – who asked him?
But are Putin’s war aims really that precise and that limited? If Putin would be satisfied with eastern Ukraine and Crimea, why did he begin the war by going after Kyiv, in central Ukraine? Why is he attacking Lviv, in western Ukraine, with missiles and bombs? Why did he go after Mariupol, besiege Mikolyiev, and threaten to go after Odessa next? Isn’t it because he intends to capture Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coast, to cut off Ukraine’s ocean commerce and thereby drive it into bankruptcy and control it economically; AND connect to Transnistria, easing his way into Moldova? Why, in his public pronouncements, does Putin declare that Ukraine has no proper existence as a separate (from Russia) nation, and its government is Nazi and illegitimate? Does this sound like someone who would be satisfied with a few miles of territory? What about Russia’s thirty years of post-Soviet history fighting to regain its place as a world superpower and intervening in former Soviet republics – Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan? (3) What’s next after Ukraine – the rest of Moldova? Estonia? Poland? Street is anxious to put peaceful intentions into Putin’s mind, but anti-imperialist activists should judge things by actions, not suave speeches at the UN. Giving in to fascist aggression is no guarantee of peace.
Nor is it a guarantee that the victims of aggression will roll over silently. If the Ukrainians don’t take Street’s advice to capitulate, couldn’t they obtain some arms elsewhere than the U.S., enough to keep Russian blood flowing in the Donbass for a long time? Surely, they could obtain some weapons from Slovakia, Romania, Poland and the Baltics – those next in line for Putin if he takes over Ukraine. Street poses as a peacenik who just wants the bloodletting to stop, but simple surrender is not always a guarantee of peace. As in dealing with an unruly child, the best way to deal with Putin may simply be to say, “No.”
Eric Draitser skewers what he calls “fake anti-imperialists" in several videos posted on CounterPunch online. Since no written transcripts are available, I cannot give extensive quotes, but his videos are available on the Counterpunch website and on patreon.com. Here I will summarize some points from one of them (4).
Draitser performs a useful service by patrolling what he calls the “Twitter Hellscape” and digging out arguments given by denizens of that world. The first one he examines is a video of a Serbian soccer match in which fans held up signs naming countries attacked by U.S. imperialism (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and then a large slogan, “Give peace a chance.” The point of the demonstration was to divert attention away from Russia’s attack on Ukraine by saying, “What about the U.S.?” Draitser argues against this message by saying, OK, the sentiment for peace is not bad, but one must also consider WHO is calling for it, WHEN and WHERE are they talking about, and FOR WHAT REASON. This is a good answer to those self-proclaimed anti-imperialists who are always crying, “Examine the context of the war!” Yes, examine the context, Draitser says, and you’ll find that this is a bunch of fascists cynically making use of anti-war sentiment in service of supporting Russia’s aggression.
A second Twitter video he examines showed a drone flying over a devastated city which then asks, Is it Mariupol? But no, it’s Detroit, devastated by neo-liberal de-industrialization. The point, again, is to divert away from the destruction wrought by Russia and point to the desolation wrought by American capitalism. Draitser answers, Yes, the devastation of Detroit is terrible, but it’s possible to hold two things in mind at the same time; genuine anti-imperialists can condemn what’s happened to Detroit AND ALSO condemn Russian aggression. Draitser’s discussion of these videos shows his strong points: he doesn’t just dismiss these ridiculous videos, he gets into the mind of their producers and examines what they are trying to accomplish and points out how ridiculous it is.
Thirdly, Draitser examines a podcast posted by Max Blumenthal on his
website The Gray Zone and on patreon.com. Blumenthal is, apparently, a
fairly well-known journalist who has written for the New York Times and
Al Jazeera, but also for pro-Russian media outlets like RT. (5) In this
podcast Blumenthal declared the bombing of a theater in Mariupol
“staged” and said it was a “false flag” operation. He points out that
the theater bombing occurred just before Zelensky’s speech to the U.S.
Congress and concludes that it was TIMED that way. The idea is that bad
actors in the Ukrainian military blew up the theater, killing hundreds
of civilians, especially women and children, to push Congress to act.
And what’s the evidence?, Draitser asks. Well, there is none, except a
report from some Kremlin-connected Russian journalist who says he heard
a rumor to that effect. Also, there’s the denial of any such attack by
the Russian Ministry of Defense. Draitser rightfully heaps scorn on
Blumenthal for presenting such statements as evidence. Finally, there’s
the judgment of Blumenthal himself, who argues that it couldn’t have
been the Russians, because the theater was of no military value to
them. Draitser ridicules Blumenthal for thinking he knows what is of
value to the Russians and points out this contradicts what Blumenthal
says in another part of his article. This is a good point, though I
think it could be strengthened by saying: Clearly, terrorizing the
civilian population is a major aim of Russia’s invasion, to cow
Ukrainians into submission. Russia is bombing apartment buildings
and schools all over the country. For the Russians, the theater DID
have military value, even if there were no weapons or military
personnel there. It never occurs to Blumenthal that Russian war aims
might entail the commission of war crimes.
Draitser concludes by saying serious anti-imperialists should
support the right to self-determination, including that of Ukraine, and
not laugh at or laugh off the victims of imperialist aggression. The
people of Ukraine are not just collateral damage in a proxy war between
Russia and the U.S.; they are real human beings forced to defend their
independent sovereignty against a brutal imperialist attack.
But while ridiculing those who justify Putin’s aggression, Draitser
also opposes arming Ukraine so it can resist that aggression. In a
video posted March 10, Draitser argues against any arming of Ukraine by
the U.S. This comes up in the context of a discussion by Draitser about
the importance for the U.S. to maintain lines of communication with
Russia, to not let things spiral out of control and lead to nuclear
war. Draitser adds that he is against the U.S. sending any
weapons to Ukraine. Now, this begins to sound like Paul Street’s
conciliationism. Draitser condemns Putin’s aggression, but he’s afraid
to embarrass Putin and opposes any talk of Ukrainian victory. We should
denounce Putin’s aggression with words, but not help the Ukrainians put
a stop to it.
In a more recent video (6) Draitser continues this line: he
denounces any talk of Ukrainian victory, saying such talk is ridiculous
and dangerous, and opposes escalated U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine, as
it will lead to a fearful expansion of the war. Russia cannot possibly
lose, but if it’s about to, watch out! -- Putin might – what? Invade a
neighboring sovereign country? Bomb civilian populations? Destroy
cities? Blockade and destroy grain shipments needed by starving people
in Asia and Africa? In his fear of what Russia might do, Draitser
forgets what Russia is actually doing.
Draitser does raise the possibility of Putin’s being overthrown, but only connects this to a rightist, militarist coup. But a serious military setback for Putin in Ukraine would no doubt give rise to a more powerful anti-war movement in Russia, a movement that might overthrow Putin and stymy revanchist forces.
Ukraine’s right to self-determination is under serious attack, and the people of that country have the right to defend themselves. This includes the right to buy, borrow and beg arms from other countries. If the result is a victory for Ukraine and serious embarrassment for Putin, that’s hardly a problem for anti-imperialist activists. And it could only strengthen the anti-war movement in Russia. []
(1.) Jeffrey St. Clair, “The politics of lesser-imperialism", CounterPunch, April 10, 2022.
(2.) Paul Street, “Reflections on Ukraine and the broke-brain 'left' “, CounterPunch, April 15, 2022.
(3.) For background on
Russian intervention, see Joseph Green, “Timeline on 30 years of
Russian intervention against the sovereignty of the other former Soviet
republics”, Detroit/Seattle Workers’
Voice mailing list, April 5, 2022.
(4.) Eric Draitser, “Exposing fake
anti-imperialists on Ukraine”, video posted on patreon.com, March
28, 2022, at 8:59 PM.
(5.) For more information on Blumenthal, see the Wikipedia article
on him or see his own Gray Zone website.
(6.) Eric Draitser, “The
tide is turning against Ukraine.” Video posted on CounterPunch, June 8, 2022. <>
Back to main
page,
how to order CV,
write us!