These are some notes from my input to a Veterans for Peace list-serve discussion sparked by Katrina vanden Heuvel's "We Need a Real Debate About the Ukraine War." That Washington Post opinion seeks a re-hearing of Russian propaganda talking points about Ukraine after they have been thoroughly discredited with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. "Those who provide history and context around the conflict should not be silenced or smeared," says one who occasionally appears on network news shows, and has been published by the Post five times since that May 24th article.
Many in this discussion blamed Biden and NATO for the conflict, and promote Putin's propaganda about his need to respond to NATO expansion and demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. I was never sure how much was sincere, and how much was gas lighting. I tried to use the twin powers of logic and facts to prove my arguments. Sometimes that isn't enough. All to often, I've found that there is an emotional component to the person's belief system that ignores facts, and is impervious to logic. With some anti-war Vietnam veterans I suspect it stems from having been so badly used, and in the case of ex-Marines—duped—by US imperialism, that they carry an emotional vendetta that sees only it.
Nevertheless, I persisted. I begin by responding to a comparison of events in Europe today with those that proceeded World War II:
Shades of 1939??? is right! "History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes."
Even 1936. When Hitler sent his very real Nazis to occupy the Rhineland in 1936, his first territorial expansion, he blamed it on the newly signed Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Defense, just as Putin, and his fanboys, blame his terror campaign against Ukrainians on "NATO expansion."
Is the Russian "Special Military Operation" a proxy war?
If you are my proxy, you are expected to vote the way I tell you to vote, regardless of your personal opinion. You aren't my proxy just because I give you a ride to the meeting. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a proxy war. Russia invaded Ukraine itself. Ukrainians are acting in their own self-interest. 44 countries, and countless other organizations and individuals, are supporting their efforts. That doesn't make Ukrainians proxies of any of them.
Katrina is right about one thing—every country has its ultra-rightists, neo-Nazis & fascists. (In truth, a "Nazi" is a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, which doesn't exist anymore. Putin insists on that term, rather than the more accurate ones I listed, because of its deep propaganda value for Russians that suffered so much in WWII. His fanboys parrot it because he uses it.) In its last national election (2019), the Ukrainian ultra-right got 2.5% of the vote, and didn't win a single parliament seat. The US has a greater percent of neo-Nazis than that. So, does Putin reserve the "right" to invade any country and "denazify" it, because it has neo-Nazi parties?
Is the Russian "Special Military Operation" a proxy war?
If you are my proxy, you are expected to vote the way I tell you to vote, regardless of your personal opinion. You aren't my proxy just because I give you a ride to the meeting. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a proxy war. Russia invaded Ukraine itself. Ukrainians are acting in their own self-interest. 44 countries, and countless other organizations and individuals, are supporting their efforts. That doesn't make Ukrainians proxies of any of them.
Katrina is right about one thing—every country has its ultra-rightists, neo-Nazis & fascists. (In truth, a "Nazi" is a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, which doesn't exist anymore. Putin insists on that term, rather than the more accurate ones I listed, because of its deep propaganda value for Russians that suffered so much in WWII. His fanboys parrot it because he uses it.) In its last national election (2019), the Ukrainian ultra-right got 2.5% of the vote, and didn't win a single parliament seat. The US has a greater percent of neo-Nazis than that. So, does Putin reserve the "right" to invade any country and "denazify" it, because it has neo-Nazi parties?
If you look at how the Russian state defines "Nazi," it is any Ukrainian that self-identifies as a Ukrainian, and not a Russian. Putin uses "Ukrainian Nazi" and "Ukrainian nationalist" interchangeably because he sees any Ukrainian nationalist as a "Nazi." The nationalism of imperialist powers is the problem, not the nationalism of oppressed nations, like Ukraine.
Putin claimed he was forced to invade Ukraine because of the "genocide" against ethnic Russians in the east. The devastation, and massive loss of life. which he has visited on the ethnic Russian cities of Mariupol and Kharkiv, once he saw how heroically they opposed his aggression, put the lie to that grotesque claim. Newsweek reported that Russia has fired more missiles into Ukraine (in just 90 days!) than have been fired in any conflict since WWII!
Should Ukrainians be forced to give up a piece of Ukraine for peace in Ukraine?
Those that think Russia should be allowed to keep parts of Ukraine must consider the long-term consequences of supporting the annexation of another country's land by force. That, most certainly, is not the road to world peace.
Those, like Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Henry Kissinger, that demand Zelenskyy cede Ukrainian territory to Putin, in an effort to buy "Peace in our time." need to answer the following questions:
- How many millions of Ukrainians should we allow Putin to put in his "filtration" camps in the name of Peace?
- How many should he be allowed to deport to inclement parts of Russia in the name of Peace?
- How many should he be allowed to consign to body bags, including Russian conscripts?
- How many should he be allowed to disappear with his mobile incinerators because you fear his nuclear blackmail?
All of those who argue that Ukraine should be forced by the US & NATO to cede some of its territory to Russia need to understand what they are arguing for. Because this is happening now, they, and that includes some on this list, aren't just genocide deniers, they are genocide enablers.
Russia is depopulating parts of eastern Ukraine, forcibly removing thousands into remote parts of Russia CNN Thu May 26, 2022
Wikipedia has an article on how these camps were used against Chechens:
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been processed through a series of Russian “filtration camps” in Eastern Ukraine and sent into Russia as part of a systematized program of forced removal, according to four sources familiar with the latest Western intelligence – an estimate far higher than US officials have publicly disclosed.
Video shows Russian ‘filtration camp,’ Mariupol mayor’s office says Washington Post May 6, 2022
Horrors of Russian filtration camps for Ukrainians: fingerprints, searches in phones, interrogations
According to the Russian human rights group Memorial, "by the most modest estimations", the overall number of those having passed through the established and ad hoc "filtration points" reaches at least 200,000 people (out of Chechnya's population of less than one million), of whom "practically all" were subjected to beatings and torture, and some were summarily executed.
Brian,
Ukraine was expected to fall in 3 days, not only by Putin, but also by many in the West. They now have not only held out for more than 90 [now 138!] days against a nuclear armed superpower, but have managed to push back Russia's early success around Kivi and Kharkiv. By doing this, they have shown an incredible level of national unity and resolve that Americans could only hope for. In the face of the overwhelming odds it faces, the Ukrainian government has shown itself to be extremely competent in leading its people's war. It has also shown more humanity than our own government, even more humanity towards its fallen enemy than the Russian government has shown to its own dead soldiers. It has also demonstrated a very high level of support among its people, including the ethnic Russians in the East. Putin, on the other hand, has waged an extremely brutal, and unprovoked, war against Ukrainian civilians. He has said many times that he believes Ukraine has no right to exist, its land was stolen from Russia, and must be destroyed as an independent nation. He has gone out of his way to destroy Ukrainian industry, and agriculture, an agriculture much of the Middle East and Africa depend on for its very existence. He has actively destroyed symbols of Ukrainian culture and history, deported hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians far from their homeland, with a view towards replacing them with Russians, and he has filled many mass graves with Ukrainian civilians.
I would think that this past 90 days lived experience should cause all to question the Putin/Stone narrative about what really happened in 2014, because it demonstrates these important points:
- The Ukrainian people are nobody's fool, nobody's dupes.
- The current Ukrainian government is supported by, and representative, of the Ukrainian people, and is nobody's puppet regime.
- Falling under Russian domination, i.e. being in the Russian "sphere of influence," represents an existential threat both to Ukrainian lives and Ukraine's existence as a nation. Remember the Ukrainian genocide under Stalin. Putin is a fan of Stalin, but not Lenin.
In 2013, when Yanukovych refused the popular accord for closer integration with the EU, in favor of closer ties with Moscow, he wasn't just making a president's decision about who was offering Ukraine a better deal on paper, he was delivering his nation to an imperialist power bent on its destruction. The Ukrainians understood this. That is why the masses came out in The Maidan, and forced him to flee to Moscow.
No doubt, US imperialists, as always, tried to gain influence and advantage from this turn of events, and pumped billions of dollars into the effort, but it wasn't the main force behind what you regard as the destabilization of Ukraine. That was accomplished by Yanukovych, and his backers in Moscow, when they attempted to deliver Ukraine to a power bent on its destruction. The people knew that, and they were having none of it!
True, Nuland and Pyatt were caught on tape discussing who they would like to see in power. US diplomats do this all the time, but spinning that into a massive plot to replace a legitimate government against the people's will is the stuff of conspiracy theory. This is a theory promoted by Putin, and his followers. It completely takes away the Ukrainian's agency, but then Putin believes they have no independent agency, or even an independent right to exist.
Whatever basis this 'coup' thesis may seemed to have had in the past, it has been completely debunked by the courage and unity of the Ukrainian people, including the ethnic Russians, in the current struggle.
Brian,
"On 7 March 1936, using the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance as a pretext, Chancellor and Führer Adolf Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to march 20,000 German troops into the Rhineland" according to Wikipedia. Hitler claimed that as a result of that treaty, Germany was threatened with encirclement. At the time, I'm sure many sympathetic to the Nazis accept that justification for the invasion, but it began a wave of expansion of Nazi military occupation that eventually went west to the English Channel, and East to the gates of Stalingrad, and had to be put down with tremendous loss of life and resources by the Allies.
Today, Putin is using "NATO expansion" as the major pretext for his invasion of Ukraine. If you've read his 12 July 2021 paper on Russia and Ukraine, you know that he doesn't think Ukraine has a right to an independent existence, he wants to recreate the old Czarist Russian Empire, and his expansion plans don't stop at Ukraine, but proceed west to include Moldova, and parts of Poland, and north to include the Baltic States. In that ~7000 word document, he doesn't even get to NATO until ~ word 6500, still he has made "NATO expansion" the headline in his bid to dominate Ukraine, and many in the west have echoed that refrain. In view of this, it deserves our serious scrutiny.
Many point to Baker's supposed promise in 1991 that NATO would not expand East 1 inch if the Soviet Union would agree to German reunification. At the time Russia and Ukraine were the 2 biggest countries in the USSR. In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nukes in return to security guarantees from both the US, and Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if some in Ukraine regret that decision, in view of current events. I, for one, do not, because it would mean that the current conflict would be one between two nuclear powers, and we all could be in a world of hurt—but it also means that the US, not NATO—who was not a party to that agreement, has a moral obligation to honor that commitment, and defend Ukrainian sovereignty, even if it involves US boots on the ground. Most who repeat Putin's complaint about a non-NATO expansion promise being broken, conveniently forget about the Budapest Memorandum, but unlike whatever Baker, or Bush, said in 1991, that agreement was in writing.
There are many reasons I believe the complaint about a 1991 promise not to expand NATO being broken is wrong. Let me briefly enumerate them:
Brian,
"On 7 March 1936, using the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance as a pretext, Chancellor and Führer Adolf Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to march 20,000 German troops into the Rhineland" according to Wikipedia. Hitler claimed that as a result of that treaty, Germany was threatened with encirclement. At the time, I'm sure many sympathetic to the Nazis accept that justification for the invasion, but it began a wave of expansion of Nazi military occupation that eventually went west to the English Channel, and East to the gates of Stalingrad, and had to be put down with tremendous loss of life and resources by the Allies.
Today, Putin is using "NATO expansion" as the major pretext for his invasion of Ukraine. If you've read his 12 July 2021 paper on Russia and Ukraine, you know that he doesn't think Ukraine has a right to an independent existence, he wants to recreate the old Czarist Russian Empire, and his expansion plans don't stop at Ukraine, but proceed west to include Moldova, and parts of Poland, and north to include the Baltic States. In that ~7000 word document, he doesn't even get to NATO until ~ word 6500, still he has made "NATO expansion" the headline in his bid to dominate Ukraine, and many in the west have echoed that refrain. In view of this, it deserves our serious scrutiny.
Many point to Baker's supposed promise in 1991 that NATO would not expand East 1 inch if the Soviet Union would agree to German reunification. At the time Russia and Ukraine were the 2 biggest countries in the USSR. In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nukes in return to security guarantees from both the US, and Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if some in Ukraine regret that decision, in view of current events. I, for one, do not, because it would mean that the current conflict would be one between two nuclear powers, and we all could be in a world of hurt—but it also means that the US, not NATO—who was not a party to that agreement, has a moral obligation to honor that commitment, and defend Ukrainian sovereignty, even if it involves US boots on the ground. Most who repeat Putin's complaint about a non-NATO expansion promise being broken, conveniently forget about the Budapest Memorandum, but unlike whatever Baker, or Bush, said in 1991, that agreement was in writing.
There are many reasons I believe the complaint about a 1991 promise not to expand NATO being broken is wrong. Let me briefly enumerate them:
- There are serious questions about whether such a promise was ever made.
- That promise, if it was made, was made to the USSR, which a little while later ceased to exist. It was never made to Russia independently, and obviously didn't consider the fate of the former Soviet republics, once they sought freedom from Russia.
- Bush and Baker had no authority to speak for NATO, which is an organization that, while clearly dominated by the US, makes decisions by country votes, and has its own agency. The USSR, let alone Russia, shouldn't have relied on those US promises either. They should have said, fine, that's your policy, then take it to NATO, and bring back something in writing. NATO expanded because, after the fall of the Soviet Union. many of the former Soviet republics sought its protection from Russian domination, and now we can all see why. If Putin doesn't invade Poland, it will be because Poland is in NATO. Ditto the Baltic republics. Those countries petitioned, even begged, to be in NATO, and the European members wanted it. Far from ramrodding "NATO expansion," many US leaders opposed it, which is why you can now quote them saying as much. They didn't want the US to be obligated to defend small countries with little economic value to the US, but the US could hardly veto membership when the European states supported it, given all the US rhetoric about human rights and self-determination.
- Finally, Ukraine hadn't moved "one inch" closer to NATO membership now, or in the years before Russia's invasion.
Brian,
In my last response to you, I failed to address your claim that "Ukraine’s east has Russian history and culture." I think that is pro-Russian, one-sided, and leaves a lot out. So, here I'll just quote what Wikipedia has to say about the history of Donbass:
According to the Russian Imperial Census of 1897, Ukrainians ("Little Russians", in the official imperial language) accounted for 52.4% of the population of the region, whilst ethnic Russians constituted 28.7%.[21] Ethnic Greeks, Germans, Jews and Tatars also had a significant presence in the Donbas, particularly in the district of Mariupol, where they constituted 36.7% of the population.[22] Despite this, Russians constituted the majority of the industrial workforce. Ukrainians dominated rural areas, but cities were often inhabited solely by Russians who had come seeking work in the region's heavy industries.[23] Those Ukrainians who did move to the cities for work were quickly assimilated into the Russian-speaking worker class.[24]
Also, in that email, talking about Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland, I said " At the time, I'm sure many sympathetic to the Nazis accept that justification for the invasion." I was right. On further reading, I found this from Wikipedia:
David Lloyd George, a pro-German member of the British House of Commons, stated in that body that Hitler's actions in the wake of the pact had been fully justified to protect his country and that he would have been a traitor to Germany if he had failed to act.[3]
Based on that history, I want to suggest that all those who seek to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine by using his "NATO expansion" excuse, adopt Lloyd George as their patron saint.
Greg,
I never said, or even implied, that Russia has no "legitimate security concerns over NATO expansionism." My critique is reserved for those that attempt to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine based on those concerns. For example, I may have "legitimate security concerns" if a neighbor with whom I've had disputes, has bought a gun. That in no way justifies my preemptively taking him out.
It's not that Hitler didn't have "legitimate security concerns" about the Franco-Soviet Treaty. The problem was he intended to gobble up much more than just the Rhineland.
Russia (Putin) also has illegitimate concerns about NATO expansion because countries it intends to gobble up are flocking to NATO for protection. NATO is a barrier to Russian imperialist expansion. That is his real problem with NATO. I'm sure he knows NATO has no plans to invade Russia as long as he doesn't invade any NATO countries. But he does want to invade NATO countries. That is his NATO problem.
Brian,
You say Putin's invasion was wrong, and yet you make your support for it obvious by the way you cycle through Russian talking points on the war. Your latest being "the Global South view" as you interpret it:
Germany certainly isn't part of the Global South, it's one of the richest countries in Europe. It certainly supports Ukraine in this war, even sending them lethal weapons, and yet Germany refuses to sanction Russian gas. The reason is well known. They can't afford to. They are too dependent on Russian gas, and won't let their people freeze, or their basic industries grind to a halt. Few countries in the Global South can afford to boycott Russian wheat, especially when Russia is taking Ukrainian wheat off the market. Enough of their people will starve already because of that. Yet, you choose to interpret that as support for Russia's war against Ukraine. Egypt has refused Russian shiploads of stolen Ukrainian wheat time and again. Those ships then docked in Syria. I'll leave it to you to decide which course is the most honorable.
You see the request for Russian sanctions as "US wishes." Isn't it first,and foremost, a demand of the Ukrainian government. Why do you ignore that? Everything is not about US.
The two biggest "influencers" in the Global South are the authoritarian leaders of China and India. They have very specific geo-political or economic reasons for not supporting sanctions against Russia. The same could be said for the leaders of countries like Venezuela and Syria, who are economically or militarily dependent on Russia. Israel has its reasons too. But you present this as some sort of wisdom coming from the people of the Global South. That is Putin propaganda.
Skip,
When you wrote "I find your incendiary lingo very unhelpful," I went over all my posts to this thread to try and figure out what you were talking about. The only thing I could come up with was when I warned that many in the US Left, including some on this list, weren't just genocide deniers, they are genocide enablers. Is that what you were referring to? If not, please tell me. If it was, that was not meant to be incendiary lingo, it was meant to be a statement of fact, and a warning.
Propaganda that demonizes the victims of genocide is essential to every genocide. Examples include Goebbels describing Jews as vermin or rats, and the Rwandan radio station that described the Tutsis as cockroaches. For some years now, many in the US Left, including some VFP members, have repeated, and continue to promote, Putin's lie that the Maidan revolution was a US orchestrated Nazi-led coup against a legitimate Ukrainian government. That was the beginning of a whole "alternative" narrative that has been applauded by the Kremlin. This set the stage for Russia's current campaign of genocide against the Ukrainian nation under the banner of denazification and demilitarization. We will forever wonder if Putin would have even proceeded without his supporters in the West. Did this echo chamber encourage his delusions?
US imperialism has done some wicked things. I know. I have documented some of them. I am one of its victims. But, too many on the American Left have allowed their hatred of US imperialism, and all too often, sentimental feelings for what the Soviet Union once was, to blind them to the fact that the United States is no longer "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." Today, that infamous title clearly belongs to Putin's Russia. Even as the US was extracting itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, Putin's Russia multiplied the bloodshed in the Middle East by backing the thug Assad, and using his air force to bomb Syrian cities like Aleppo [and Idlib] into rubble. Putin has used his state power to become the leader of a worldwide white supremacist movement. The most recent, and possible future, POTUS is one of his followers. He has visions of a Eurasian dominated by Slavs of the Great Russian persuasion, but first he must unite those Slavs under his banner, by force if necessary. Just like Hitler before him, except for Adoph, it was the Aryans that were a whiter shade of white. So, now he begins his European "special military operation" starting with the bloody genocide of Ukraine, and the absorption of its remaining people, and broken territory, into his Great Russian Empire. While he massacres civilians, and threatens nuclear holocaust if anyone tries to stop him, the US Left wavers between supportive and "neutral."
This is sad. The Left is missing an unprecedented opportunity to build the movement because support for the Ukrainian people is strong. I know because I fly the Ukrainian colors on my bike and balcony. People naturally support a little country invaded by an imperialist superpower when their judgement isn't clouded by "patriotism." They rightly look with disgust at "anti-imperialists" that promote Putin's propaganda, and fail to condemn or "demonize" the side that is dropping cluster bombs on apartment buildings, By and large, the people stand with Ukraine. This can be seen by the international fighters that have come to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, reminiscent of those that fought the fascists in Spain before WWII. It can also be seen among the Russian soldiers that have deserted, and even formed a Russian legion to fight alongside the Ukrainians. (Yes, that is a thing.)
To whom it may concern: By your actions you are pretty much assuring that VFP will die when your generation of veterans die, and, for all the good work it has done over many years, it will be remembered for its support of Putin's fascism and white supremacy. For all your claims about Putin's support from the authoritarians of the Global South, you stand alone and isolated. You dare not protest with the Russian flag, the way you once marched with the flag of the Assad regime in Syria. Too many people are paying attention to this struggle and understand it. At long last, you have come over to the side of the war criminal Henry Kissinger, You have my sympathy.
Slava Ukraini!
Clay Claiborne
You say Putin's invasion was wrong, and yet you make your support for it obvious by the way you cycle through Russian talking points on the war. Your latest being "the Global South view" as you interpret it:
Today, the Global South almost universally refuses to follow US wishes to sanction Russia. Instead, the South calls the US hypocritical for sanctioning a Russian invasion. For, the Global South points out, the US has long done the same thing. That means the Global South sees US leaders as depraved.The ability to support sanctions, like boycotts, is often a sign of privilege. The first boycott I was involved in was the UFW grape boycott. That was easy for me because I had many other fruits to choose from. It was not so easy for a winery, or a winery worker. The UFW was wise to ask people to boycott grapes. Had they asked us to boycott corn, it would have been much harder, and had they asked us to boycott all farm-raised food, their boycott would have failed out the gate.
Yet within the US, some people differ from that Global South view. Those US people, rather than being accurate, are missing something. For, how could a human not see this track record as depraved?
Germany certainly isn't part of the Global South, it's one of the richest countries in Europe. It certainly supports Ukraine in this war, even sending them lethal weapons, and yet Germany refuses to sanction Russian gas. The reason is well known. They can't afford to. They are too dependent on Russian gas, and won't let their people freeze, or their basic industries grind to a halt. Few countries in the Global South can afford to boycott Russian wheat, especially when Russia is taking Ukrainian wheat off the market. Enough of their people will starve already because of that. Yet, you choose to interpret that as support for Russia's war against Ukraine. Egypt has refused Russian shiploads of stolen Ukrainian wheat time and again. Those ships then docked in Syria. I'll leave it to you to decide which course is the most honorable.
You see the request for Russian sanctions as "US wishes." Isn't it first,and foremost, a demand of the Ukrainian government. Why do you ignore that? Everything is not about US.
The two biggest "influencers" in the Global South are the authoritarian leaders of China and India. They have very specific geo-political or economic reasons for not supporting sanctions against Russia. The same could be said for the leaders of countries like Venezuela and Syria, who are economically or militarily dependent on Russia. Israel has its reasons too. But you present this as some sort of wisdom coming from the people of the Global South. That is Putin propaganda.
Brian,
More thoughts on the Global South and Russia's war against Ukraine...
As part of its genocidal war effort, Russia is doing everything it can to destroy Ukrainian agriculture. These actions range from destroying or stealing farm equipment, to bombing and mining Ukrainian farms, to destroying or stealing Ukrainian wheat, to destroying grain silos and storage facilities, and blockading Ukrainian ports so they can't export grain,
Since 400 million people in the Global South depend on Ukrainian agriculture, it is quite possible, I think even likely, that more people will die in the Global South from Russia's war on Ukraine than will die in Ukraine itself. They will die of starvation and famine, but since those deaths are bloodless, they will die in small villages in the Global South with little notice from the world's media.
But I guarantee you one thing. None of the leaders you see as fairly representing the Global South in refusing Russian sanctions, none of them will go hungry.
Skip,
When you wrote "I find your incendiary lingo very unhelpful," I went over all my posts to this thread to try and figure out what you were talking about. The only thing I could come up with was when I warned that many in the US Left, including some on this list, weren't just genocide deniers, they are genocide enablers. Is that what you were referring to? If not, please tell me. If it was, that was not meant to be incendiary lingo, it was meant to be a statement of fact, and a warning.
Propaganda that demonizes the victims of genocide is essential to every genocide. Examples include Goebbels describing Jews as vermin or rats, and the Rwandan radio station that described the Tutsis as cockroaches. For some years now, many in the US Left, including some VFP members, have repeated, and continue to promote, Putin's lie that the Maidan revolution was a US orchestrated Nazi-led coup against a legitimate Ukrainian government. That was the beginning of a whole "alternative" narrative that has been applauded by the Kremlin. This set the stage for Russia's current campaign of genocide against the Ukrainian nation under the banner of denazification and demilitarization. We will forever wonder if Putin would have even proceeded without his supporters in the West. Did this echo chamber encourage his delusions?
US imperialism has done some wicked things. I know. I have documented some of them. I am one of its victims. But, too many on the American Left have allowed their hatred of US imperialism, and all too often, sentimental feelings for what the Soviet Union once was, to blind them to the fact that the United States is no longer "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." Today, that infamous title clearly belongs to Putin's Russia. Even as the US was extracting itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, Putin's Russia multiplied the bloodshed in the Middle East by backing the thug Assad, and using his air force to bomb Syrian cities like Aleppo [and Idlib] into rubble. Putin has used his state power to become the leader of a worldwide white supremacist movement. The most recent, and possible future, POTUS is one of his followers. He has visions of a Eurasian dominated by Slavs of the Great Russian persuasion, but first he must unite those Slavs under his banner, by force if necessary. Just like Hitler before him, except for Adoph, it was the Aryans that were a whiter shade of white. So, now he begins his European "special military operation" starting with the bloody genocide of Ukraine, and the absorption of its remaining people, and broken territory, into his Great Russian Empire. While he massacres civilians, and threatens nuclear holocaust if anyone tries to stop him, the US Left wavers between supportive and "neutral."
This is sad. The Left is missing an unprecedented opportunity to build the movement because support for the Ukrainian people is strong. I know because I fly the Ukrainian colors on my bike and balcony. People naturally support a little country invaded by an imperialist superpower when their judgement isn't clouded by "patriotism." They rightly look with disgust at "anti-imperialists" that promote Putin's propaganda, and fail to condemn or "demonize" the side that is dropping cluster bombs on apartment buildings, By and large, the people stand with Ukraine. This can be seen by the international fighters that have come to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, reminiscent of those that fought the fascists in Spain before WWII. It can also be seen among the Russian soldiers that have deserted, and even formed a Russian legion to fight alongside the Ukrainians. (Yes, that is a thing.)
To whom it may concern: By your actions you are pretty much assuring that VFP will die when your generation of veterans die, and, for all the good work it has done over many years, it will be remembered for its support of Putin's fascism and white supremacy. For all your claims about Putin's support from the authoritarians of the Global South, you stand alone and isolated. You dare not protest with the Russian flag, the way you once marched with the flag of the Assad regime in Syria. Too many people are paying attention to this struggle and understand it. At long last, you have come over to the side of the war criminal Henry Kissinger, You have my sympathy.
Slava Ukraini!
Clay Claiborne
