A manual for cheerleaders

In 2015 a fellow journalist moved to Kyiv from Moscow and posted about encountering all sorts of Westerners in a hostel, all of them excited to be doing something “for the cause.” She didn’t spell it out but the message was clear. I could see myself there, surrounded by Canadians, Americans, and Brits, listening to them yammer on about Maidan, “the cause,” Putin, and various other subjects they’d never spoken about prior to 2014, perhaps punctuated by bro-stories about “hot chicks.” Yeah, I know these types, and my expectations are low.

Last autumn I published a piece about cheerleaders. Looking back I think I might have left out a key feature that makes the worst sort of cheerleader out there. This is the cheerleader that really has no background or interest in a particular cause until they see something on TV or perhaps a movie, and then that thing “inspires” them to take up the torch and “fight” for something they don’t really understand. Generally these cheerleaders get a ridiculously oversimplified version of the story, pick a side, and then dive right in. Their boundless passion and black-and-white thinking causes them to attract the attention of the most radical, absolutist elements on the side they’re supporting. As they fall in with these people, a feedback loop is created whereby they believe their passion and dedication is both representative and appreciated. Simultaneously, their radical friends find a pliant foreigner on which they can imprint their own ideology, even if it isn’t very representative or accurate. At this point our newly minted cheerleader is more than happy to lecture people who have years of background in the subject and who are far more qualified to make opinions, usually beginning with the line: “Well I have Ukrainian/Russian friends, and they agree with me!”

The problem with these insufferable dipshits is that to them everything is simple. “I must save poor Ukraine from Putin’s Soviet Russia!” Never mind the fact that they never knew anything about Ukraine or Russia before that. “I must support the Donbass revolutionaries against the fascist junta!” Ah yes, if only you knew something about Russian and Ukrainian “Communists” before you decided to play Che Guevara in Donetsk. Sometimes you try to reach these people, but they’ve already got their “handlers” filling their heads with their own ideological bullshit.

In truth, what is happening in Ukraine, and indeed Russia too, is very complicated. The American or Canadian English teacher can spend a few months in Kyiv, write an article, and suddenly become a “fighter” for the cause of Ukraine versus Russia. For many Ukrainians that isn’t the case. Many of them have relatives and friends in Russia or behind occupied lines in the Crimea or Donbas. For me the epitome of how complex this conflict is was Pavel Petrov, the volunteer sniper I met on the train back to Kyiv . Born in Russia, ethnically Russian, a veteran of the Soviet army with relatives still living in Russia. And at 44 years he volunteered to fight not, as he repeated to me twice, against Russia, but “for Ukraine.” He was doing the fighting to keep his 18-year-old son safe from war. This is the sort of story that gets left out of the media coverage. It’s the kind of story that the American fresh out of college or the Brit on a gap year never learns.

Whence do these cheerleaders come? What foul mutant stork drops them on the doorstep? Well folks, I’ve finally got a perfect example. Look no further than Oscar-nominated documentary Winter on Fire. I’ve already voiced some apprehension at this film once, in the second section of this column. It seems some of my concerns were justified after I saw a couple reviews of the film.

Let me start with this review on RFE/RLOMG!CIA!!! Here’s where it set off my rage meter:

“One thing that proved crucial to the process was Afineevsky’s decision to focus solely on the people on Kyiv’s Independence Square and to tell their stories without overburdening audiences with too much background or context. The director did not want to take the audience “out of the Maidan” and he therefore eschewed any detailed explanations of the corruption and political tensions that brought people out onto the streets in the first place.”

Yeah that sounds like a winning strategy. You audience knows nothing about this country or its background, and your solution is to ignore all that in favor of focusing on a riot with flashing lights and loud noises. That certainly helps build understanding. Context? Who needs that? I bet only paid-Russian trolls would demand context!

It only gets worse:

Oscar nomination notwithstanding, some critics have also taken issue with the film’s “one-sided” narrative, which omits alternative viewpoints such as those of Ukrainians in the east who are now pushing to secede from the country and move closer to Russia.

Afineevsky gives such reproaches short shrift, however, saying that he is, first and foremost, a filmmaker not a journalist.

If he’s not a journalist, why is he making documentary films like this? The truth is that documentaries are often a poor replacement for investigative journalism, but that doesn’t mean that a documentary maker shouldn’t strive to educate his or her audience. This doesn’t help Ukraine. If he had got opposing opinions, at least from Ukrainians, audiences could have seen exactly how popular or unpopular Maidan was in the east. They might have learned how most people in eastern Ukraine don’t in fact see themselves as Russian and didn’t want to be a part of Russia. One-sidedness and oversimplification makes this film easy pickings for pro-Kremlin pundits, and they just love low-hanging fruit as it’s the only thing they can manage to take on without making fools of themselves.

Suppose for a moment that some RT hack made their own documentary about “Russian spring.” Naturally it would be pretty one-sided. Would this be nominated for an Oscar? Why not? Of course it wouldn’t be objective, but perhaps the author says that they are a filmmaker and not a journalist? If the technique of being one-sided is okay by Academy standards, then it ought to work both ways.

Once again we have a scenario whereby ignoring other viewpoints actually aids the Russian narrative, because not only can they claim bias, but they get to fill in the blanks on topics Western media outlets often ignored. An example of this I mentioned in a previous post was the matter of American funding for NGOs involved in Maidan. Because this was rarely broken down in detail in the West, the topic was essentially ceded to Russia’s propaganda machine, which filled the vacuum with their own conspiratorial narrative. Oversimplification doesn’t help the cause. I would have been far more receptive to Maidan myself had it not been for the oversimplified narrative commonly used by Western media outlets at the time.

Of course the director doesn’t seem to think oversimplification is a problem:

“He also dismisses claims that he oversimplified the narrative and glossed over some of the Maidan’s more unsavory elements, such as the involvement of the nationalist Right Sector movement, which has been accused of fascist leanings. (Afineevsky points out that insignia of the far-right group can be clearly seen on one of the interviewee’s clothes.)”

Minor correction here. Right Sector is a fascist movement by definition, hands down. It seems the director made no attempt to hide the nationalist involvement in Maidan, but if he had spent some time on that topic it would have actually been of great service to the movement. A more detailed analysis of nationalists at Maidan would have shown their true numbers and influence. We could have heard their views and then heard other Maidan participants’ opinions about them. This would have struck a blow against the Russian narrative, which from the beginning insisted that nationalists were a major, controlling part of the protests.

His defense:

“You know what? Right Sector, they actually fought for everything like everybody else. They were a part of these people,” he says. “At the end of the day, it was people who came out, who stood for what they believed in, and who achieved [something].”

Yeah, great defense there. I agree that entire protest movements shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a minority. Occupy had its share of libertarian Ron Paul cultists, LaRouchites, and even some neo-Nazis. I say this, and yet I just can’t help but remember how our American media, when faced with a domestic protest like Ferguson, just loves to focus all attention on a minority that breaks some windows or loots a store. Thereafter all the protesters and their defenders are compelled to give an account for people they had no control over and who really had nothing to do with their movement. I’d love to see more American news anchors point out that anarchists who smash Starbucks windows or opportunists who use social justice protests as cover to commit crimes were, at the end of the day “part of these people” who achieved something.

In another piece, the director referred to his film as a “manual for revolution.” To me it sounds like a manual for cheerleaders. I can almost picture that 23-year-old upper middle class American straight out of college and living on his parents dime in Kyiv. I see him at Shooters telling some local girls about how he was living it up in Amsterdam, but then he saw this film and realized that he just had to come to Kyiv and help the oppressed Ukrainian people. Or I see the young British man who’s “really into history” and oh so eager to inform me that all those bad things one hears about Bandera are really just Soviet propaganda. Such is what he learned when he started “researching” the matter here in Ukraine, in the middle of 2014.

This kind of shallow coverage doesn’t aid Ukraine or Maidan. It doesn’t promote understanding and I don’t feel it gives any agency to Ukrainians. Once again we have an Eastern European people being fetishized. We’re always gangsters, bandits, desperate women, “sex workers,” or in this case, idealistic revolutionaries who just want to be part of that wonderful, superior West.

The truth is that you can provide context and complexity without necessarily being verbose. I still think one of the best explanations of Maidan was the one provided in just a few words by Stopfake founder and director of Kyiv Mohyla Academy journalism school Yevhen Fedchenko when Robert Evans and I interviewed him last year. Paraphrasing here, he basically said that Maidan was about Ukrainians of many different agendas, ideologies, and walks of life coming together to change the way they were living. That might sound vague but in fact that is so much more accurate.

What is more, it gives people who truly are interested in Ukraine and who truly want to learn about this movement a more realistic foundation to start from. No doubt plenty of people who had rose-colored glasses during Maidan and who lacked any experience in the former Soviet Union were dismayed to find out that no, all is not well after Maidan, and no it’s not all because of the war. In fact, the problems left over after Maidan are one of the factors that has weakened Ukraine in fighting that war. I wonder how people plied with oversimplified narratives would deal with unpleasant information like that in this article about Saakashvili’s Quixotic anti-corruption crusade, or the bad news from this poll. People with realistic expectations and knowledge of the region soldier on. Newly arrived cheerleaders get disillusioned and move on.

The travails of Ukraine and Eastern Europe ought not to be a spectator sport or riot porn. What we need is more understanding and education as opposed to fetishization and vehicles through which Westerners with identity crises can live vicariously. And whether or not this film wins its Oscar, future documentary makers should remember that if they ignore large parts of the story, the Kremlin media will happily fill in those gaps with their own narrative.




4 thoughts on “A manual for cheerleaders

  1. Sohryu_L

    Shame it won’t make all those Canadians or Brits stop yammering about ‘Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk’s graft’, or ‘Ukraine is a failed state’, or ‘VSI NA MAIDAN!!!1111’

    I’m starting to think ZRADA is contagious.

  2. A.I.Schmelzer

    For what its worth, Yats is kind of popular in the Donbass because he is a force multiplier on the seperatist side.

    So, RT bullshit aside, what are the Donbass demands?

    1: Elections matter. If Donbass wins an election, especially if they win that election fair and square, they do get to do their term. Overthrowing a Donbass president because he made a completely rational decision (to not sign the EU association deal) is bullshit and antidemocratic.
    2: Equality matters: Just because Kievans and Lvivans dress like people in France, they are not “worth more” then a “Sovok Vatnik”.
    3: Everyone is corrupt, singling out the Donbass is hypocracy, Yanukovich actually got some infrastructure work done. Yushchenko/Timoschenko didnt and the less said about the “post Maidan elites” the better.
    4: Russia is a jerk, so is the west. Russia at least offers financial incentives. That the Maidanites jump because the west offers some ephermal “values” (and still takes Ukraine as a market, while minimizing Ukrainian exports to the EU under the association treaty) and well, negative money, and that the Maidanites are willing to kill and die for this just shows that they are naive, stupid and thus even more unfit for leadership of a country in such a challenging geopolitical position then the Donbass elites (you will find few fans of Yanukovich in todays Donbass) are.
    5: Several parts of the association agreement can be summed up as “Lviv cuts off his nose to cut of Donbass head”. While non Donbass Ukraine will suffer considerably from the agreement, Donbass economy will be hit more severe then the economy of the other areas due to their greater dependence on cheap energy and their greater degree of integration with Russia. Before the war, a majority in Donbass would have probably prefered to stay within Ukraine, but only with assurances that Lviv/Kiev/Maidan/Dnipro whatever does not get to forbid trade with Russia. This is not an unreasonable demand.
    6: Banderites (and these exist and kill people) can go fuck themselfs, as can anyone who willingly associates with them and accepts their aid. Given the weakness of Yanukovich, the cause of anyone needing the Banderites to oust Yanukovich must be even weaker. Donbass only accepted repugnant aid by extremist Russians after Maidan accepted equally if not more repugnant groups, and the “they [Maidan] did X first” is a pretty common, and often true refrain.
    X in this context refrains to things like declaring independence, storming army bases, openly associating with foreign great powers in a domestic conflict etc.

    The conflict will not get fixed.
    There are at least 5 sides (Russia, Seperatists, West, Kiev government, Ukrainian Nationalists), and the conditions under which they would make peace do not overlap for more then 3 of them.

    While the west could for example push Kiev to implement Minsk, and Russia would probably move towards implements its concurrent obligations too, this would leave the Nationalist (who would shout “Zrada”, and simply sabotage the ceasefire) and the Seperatists (who would either shout “Putinsliv” and also sabotage the ceasefire, or who would see Kiev honoring agreements, which is not with much precedent, as a telltale sign of weakness, and start an opportunistic landgrab with or without Russias leave) out. The West, the regime and the Nationalists would all accept a peace in which the seperatists are crushed, but Russia will prevent that, militarily if neccessary.

    There may be some “shadow Minsk” which is about the Regime and the Russians tit for tat increasing control over their nationalists/seperatists “assets”, until both can be made to accept a peace solution, but progress on this is pretty chaotic.

    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      First, Yanukovych got “overthrown” because of his own response to protests and then running away. Even if we accept that is life was truly in danger(and I wouldn’t put it past Putin to feed him “intelligence” saying so), do you mean to tell me that he honestly couldn’t find some measure of safety in Donetsk?

      As for your claims about Kyivians and Lvivians, this just shows how little you know about actual Ukrainian society. Kyiv also isn’t Western Ukraine and never was.

      As for equating the West with Russia, this doesn’t hold water. What part of Ukraine did the West annex? What part of it is occupied by NATO troops? What weapons did they send the Maidan protesters?And before you claim that Maidan was funded by the West, that money that did, indirectly go to certain groups involved in Maidan was not specifically for doing some kind of protest. Aid money goes to organizations that deal with things like legal aid or media awareness. It didn’t go to parties like Svoboda or Praviy Sektor, both of which the Russian side blame for the “coup.”

  3. A.I.Schmelzer

    Of fucking course was his life in danger. You have to be completely naive to think that it wasnt. For what its worth, 10 “opposition” figures got “suicided” or outright killed by your oh so democractic Maidan guys in early 2015 alone, who of course blame Putin for having done this.
    Western media also mostly didnt give a fuck, if you compare coverage of those murders to coverage of the Nemstov murder or the Litvinenko affair.

    And no, he could not find safety in Donbass. He was seen as a corrupt coward there after folding to Maidan, and his erstwhile allies in Kharkov betrayed him too.

    As for knowing about Ukrainian society, do you seriously claim that Maidan was not about powerplays between different regional factions? Lviv and Kiev (and Dnipro, which caught the non Maidan side by surprise because Dnipro will be pretty heavily savaged by the EU agreement) allied on Maidan. They are still distinct factions, and they still are explicitly allied against Donbass.

    Seriously, there is a “game of Ukraine”, and Houses “Lviv”, “Kiev” and “Dnipro” allied on Maidan to run house “Donbass” out of the country, which worked because house “Kharkov” stayed neutral while house “Odessa” was crushed by violence after the takeover.

    It would appear that you dont even know who the players are.

    Daenerys/Yanukovich meanwhile ran off to Essos/Russia, tried to wed/beg to Khal Drogo/Putin to return with 60.000 Dothraki scremers/1000s of Russian tanks to the throne/presidency, but it didnt quite work out, since Putin was only interested in Crimea and punishing the 3 insurgent houses, not in actually rewarding anyone or taking over a rusbelt in Donbass.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s