Tag Archives: Ukraine

Where We’re Going, We Don’t Need Eyes to See

What is the worst combination you could possibly imagine? Skittles on Chicago-style pizza? Mayonnaise Pop-Tarts? Automatic weapons for toddlers? I’ve got a pretty good contender. How about the worst film genre in existence, i.e. romantic comedy, and Russian propaganda about the Crimea? Not sold just yet? What if I told you this very real rom-com was scripted by none other than RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan? Yes. You read that correctly. Yes, I am going to subject you to this. I know about it, so now you must know about it. This is happening.

I realize some readers can’t fully understand that trailer, but rest assured it is a delightfully romantic romp that involves flagrant violations of international law as well as human rights! What’s next? A German rom-com where two star-crossed lovers are reunited in East Prussia when the Third Reich invades Poland? After all, Germany was merely trying to protect the German civilian population from a right-wing nationalist Polish government whose troops attacked several German border posts and a radio station!

But if this weren’t bad enough, the film apparently contains a subplot about the Crimean Tatars, and, as you might expect, it’s pretty ugly. Here are a few excerpts from the above-linked article.

“The film offers an unlikely take on the issue of Crimean Tatars. It opens with a young Crimean Tatar boy named Damir recalling how the original Kerch Strait bridge, a temporary wartime construction, was destroyed by winter ice in early 1945.

The scene is improbable at best, since the entire Crimean Tatar population was ruthlessly deported from the peninsula in 1944 by Stalin. In fact, Simonyan’s masterpiece was filmed just a few dozen kilometers from the Arabat Spit, where the last pockets of Crimean Tatars who had escaped deportation were loaded onto a boat that was then scuttled in the Sea of Azov, drowning all aboard.

Damir, however, grieves because the destroyed bridge separates him from his wartime love, a Russian girl named Raya, who has gone missing.

Damir is a forgiving type. At one point, discussing his own family’s fate under Stalin, he says simply, “They were sent away — that means it had to be.” At other points in the film, he has approving words for Stalin.”

Needless to say, not only was the situation for Crimean Tatars in the past very different from what is portrayed in the film, but the present is as well. Since the annexation Crimean Tatars have been subject to all manner of human rights violations, including torture and in at least one case, death. The whitewashing of both eras is a perfect example of how the Muscovite chauvinist regime views non-Muscovite nationalities within its grasp. “You will have your history dictated to you, and you may keep your culture and language so long as it doesn’t offend us.” 

The word ‘disgusting’ simply doesn’t suffice to describe this subplot.

As for the rest of the film, let’s just say this isn’t Russia’s first rodeo when it comes to feature length propaganda films about the Crimean annexation. There was also this piece of shit:

As bad as this may be, at least it’s not a rom-com; it’s clearly just a comedy. On the other hand, that 2017 film wasn’t written by Margarita Simonyan.

Now I know a lot of people, Americans included, will chime in with something about propaganda in Hollywood films. Sure, they certainly do (although in my opinion it’s more a matter of steering clear of certain taboo subjects more than anything), but rest assured modern Russian cinema blows them out of the water in terms of on-the-nose messaging. And whereas Hollywood will often liberally reinterpret real events to tell a better story, films like this basically invent a story out of thin air. If the examples above don’t convince you of this, check out the trailer for this upcoming Russian film, seemingly trying to capitalize off Ukraine’s Cyborgs, called Balkan Line.

In case you’re too young or not familiar with the 1999 Kosovo conflict I’ll help you out- none of that shit happened. It’s as if the Russian producers looked at Cyborgs, saw how well it did, and decided they just needed their own war film about an airport under siege. And since they couldn’t find a real one, they just made one up. In real life, the Russian airborne contingent who rolled into Pristina airport was totally isolated, and the whole situation was defused with the help of James Blunt. Yes, James “You’re Beautiful” Blunt. And it’s a good thing the Russians didn’t try anything because if you’ve ever seen Blunt on Twitter you know he’s no pushover.

But yeah, American Sniper sucks, but just imagine that almost every Hollywood film is American Sniper x 100, and your tax dollars are used to churn them out. Sounds great, right?

Honestly though, I’m wondering how far Margarita will go in the world of screenwriting. At the same time, I wonder how far the Russian film industry will go in the world of making up shit that never happened. Perhaps next we’ll see a film about how the Soviets actually landed on the moon first. The sky’s truly the limit when your film industry is a state-sponsored money laundering vehicle!

Advertisements

The Ties That Bind

If there’s one common theme we hear from grifters narrative architects about Russian influence operations, it’s that the object is to “divide” American society in order to weaken it. The proof, we’re told, is in the fact that much of the material put out by Russian soft power organs like RT and Sputnik, as well as the social media content from the St. Petersburg “troll factory,” is aimed at both far-right and far-left audiences. This allegedly means the Russians want to divide society by promoting polarized narratives. I’m sorry to say, but this is bullshit.

This delusion lives on because it is pleasing to certain people among the political class. It speaks to their unrealistic vision of an America where people may disagree on a few core issues, but at heart share much in common. In other words it’s Obama’s “there’s no red or blue America” speech. In reality, America has been very divided for quite some time, and while it may seem like Russian propaganda is aimed at further polarizing society, I’d say it’s more about unifying certain elements more than anything.

Over the past few years, regular readers have noted my increasing concern over red-brown activity, i.e. the coordination, both witting and unwitting, between the far-left and far-right. Historically the far-right has always tried to appropriate concepts from the left and co-opt leftists movements, but since the end of the Cold War certain actors have strove to embrace and advance this convergence for a number of aims. Where Russia is concerned, the neo-fascist Alexander Dugin appears to have made red-brown organizing a conscious strategy, one that has become a pillar of Russian soft power.

In short, Russian influence operations do not, in fact, aim to divide society in other countries, but rather unify certain elements against others. Where it cannot create actual alliances, it aims to get disparate groups to agree on certain talking points even if they may espouse them for different reasons and with different intentions. The fact that the propaganda being put out has polarizing messages is beside the point; it is designed that way simply to find a loyal audience. The main goal, once people of certain political views are hooked, is to turn them toward the Kremlin’s position on certain foreign policy goals.

We see this constantly not only in America but in other countries as well, such as Germany. Whether far-right or far-left, even in those countries where such people are often involved in bloody streetfighting, we see curious uniformity when it comes to certain issues that are near and dear to the Kremlin. Supporting Ukraine is a “proxy war,” brought on by a NATO-inspired “coup.” It matters little whether the person receiving and hopefully regurgitating the message believes that Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis or liberal crypto-Jews; all that matters is that the audience is hostile to Ukrainian independence, identity, and territorial integrity. Similarly, it is irrelevant whether the same person supports Russia’s claims on that country because they identify it with the Soviet Union or as a champion resisting the neoliberal hegemony or because they see it as the last hope for the “white race” and “Western civilization.” What is important to the Kremlin is unity- unity around that key point.

No doubt the best example of this unity is in the case of Syria, where many leftists have so easily bought into the Kremlin/Assadist narrative that they find themselves in bed with literal fascist parties and even neo-Nazi icons such as David Duke. Again, from the Kremlin point of view it is utterly unimportant whether the reason for backing Assad or at least opposing his removal is “anti-imperialism” or the belief that he fights against a “Zionist New World Order.” All that matters is that the talking points are repeated- Bashar al-Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria. The rebels are either all al Qaeda-linked Salafist jihadists or at least such people would surely dominate any future Syria without Assad.

Of course when it comes to the extreme right and left in many countries, they will often come close to such positions on their own, typically due to reasons inherent in their respective ideologies. But without direction, these groups might not always find their way to positions that benefit the Kremlin’s foreign policy aims. For example, while Russia clearly won the battle for hearts and minds when it comes to neo-Nazis and Ukraine, easily wooing more far-rightists to fight for their pseudo-states in the Donbas than the Ukrainian far-right was able to win to their side, the latter did manage to get some recruits. Were it not for the Russian propaganda machine, the split might have been more even. The same goes for recruitment of the far-left, as many more open-minded leftists around the world were supportive of Maidan for its revolutionary, anti-corruption aspects. Russian propaganda aimed at both ends of the spectrum helps guide disparate, even diametrically opposed sides to the same conclusions on key issues, though they may take different paths.

So in the future let’s put aside the idea that the aim of Russian disinformation is to divide society- our societies are divided and in many cases for very good reasons. After all, we cannot have unity with political groupings or tendencies that seek to strip away the civil rights of others. The key to understanding Russian influence operations (and doubtless those of other countries), is to understand their unifying aim. What are they trying to get disparate political tendencies to agree on, one way or another?

Sorting Out the Mess in Kyiv

I apologize for the long gap in blog posts. On the upside, I now have hosting for the podcast and I’ll be recording and hopefully releasing a new episode next week. I do plan to speak about the situation in Ukraine for part of that episode, so hopefully between that and this post, readers will have an idea of my stance on this.

I should point out that I’m going to try to keep this as brief and simplified as possible because as long-time readers and friends know, when it comes to Ukrainian politics I tend to get on my soapbox. And since my location prevents me from having a more hands on approach at the moment, I’ll save the stump speeches for another later.

So in case you’ve missed it, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship and who crossed the Ukrainian border illegally earlier this year, has been running around Kyiv trying to raise hell and calling for the impeachment of President Petro Poroshenko. There are arguments over the size of protest crowds and accusations of working for the Russians are flying like bullets at Gallipoli. Pro-Saakashvili people are trying to compare their movement to Maidan, while pro-Poroshenko people are starting to sound a lot like pro-Kremlin voices talking about Yanukovych during the actual Maidan revolution, right down to implying that the protesters are paid or duped without any agency.

vipertoad

A viper and a toad- the best descriptor for the Saakashvili-Poroshenko War of 2017.

Right from the start I must say that observing both sides (and I have friends and acquaintances on both sides of the barricades), I don’t think anyone sticking up for Saakashvili really puts much faith in him or even cares about him at all. Saakashvili seems to have made himself a rallying point around which opponents of the president can concentrate. Unlike the Russia-leaning Opposition Bloc, it’s kind of hard to pretend Saakashvili is really Russian when he, like Poroshenko, basically got into a shooting war with Moscow back in 2008. This means protesters can rally behind him while maintaining that all important “patriotism” that is so essential in Ukrainian politics these days.

For my part, I always felt bringing Saakashvili to Ukraine was a stupid gimmick, a feature of this idiotic idea that every country or individual who has some beef with the Kremlin must be a useful ally for that reason alone. That Saakashvili cleaned up corruption in Georgia and transformed that country is beyond question, something I’ve heard personally from Georgians who otherwise didn’t like the former president. Nonetheless, there was zero reason to believe that he could repeat that in the Odesa oblast or anywhere in Ukraine for that matter. I, like many Ukrainians, also have a problem with the way the Poroshenko government would hand out Ukrainian passports like candy to any semi-celebrity, including Russian Duma deputies who actually voted for the Crimean annexation, while people who have risked their lives fighting for Ukraine find themselves without residency or deported, in some cases back to Russia to face prosecution.

As ridiculous as Saakashvili’s “revolution” is, I’m more dismayed by the reactions coming from defenders of the status quo, be they openly pro-Poroshenko or not. For one thing, Poroshenko brought this on himself by first bringing Saakashvili in and then by stripping him of his citizenship when he became inconvenient.  I wonder how many of the status quo defenders were excited by Poroshenko’s decision to invite Saakashvili in the first place. But never mind that for now. I think the best way to handle this succinctly is to give an approximation of the arguments I’ve been seeing from the status-quo defenders and providing an explanation as to why they are bullshit.

We’re at war! 

No. Sorry, status quo defenders, but you don’t get to use this argument. Remember, you chose Minsk II, not victory. Any time you see this argument, push the person to say what Ukraine should do to end the war. They have no answers whatsoever. UN Peacekeepers? Won’t happen and would probably lead to a solidification of the phony “republics” if it did somehow happen. The West wins the war for Ukraine? Not going to happen. Obama had the perfect chance to crush and humiliate Putin in 2014, but he ruled out any military action from the get-go. Wait until Russia collapses? Forget it. Ukraine would suffer some sort of socio-economic collapse first, and even if it somehow didn’t, a collapse of the Russian Federation would have grave consequences for Ukraine, especially one still run by corrupt oligarchs. This is all fantasy.

Ukraine can in fact win a war against Russia, but the Poroshenko government clearly has no interest in doing so, and I’ve yet to see any of these “We’re at war” people put forth any plan for victory.

And it’s also worth noting that Ukraine has no shot at victory or even a favorable peace if its war effort is undermined by oligarchs and corrupt officials who put their personal luxury above Ukraine. Corruption in Ukraine not only exists in the arms industry, but even within the military itself.

This is helping Russian propagandists!

I find this objection rather amusing for several reasons. First of all, we know that Russian propagandists are perfectly content to just make shit up about Ukraine. Such made up stories include putting Hitler on a Ukrainian banknote, claims that the US is using Ukraine as a biological weapons testing site, and about 47 different alternative MH17 conspiracy theories, to cite just a few.

Another reason why this argument is funny is that it seems to be coming from the same side that supports things like the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory’s mission to whitewash the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and transform the Ukrainian Insurgent Army into a diverse, inclusive multi-cultural outfit that killed 12,000 Wehrmacht soldiers and never, ever killed any helpless civilians (but if they did, those people had it coming). When you try to point out that promoting the cult of literal fascists (yes, they fucking were by definition, fascists) like Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych can alienate many Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Western Europeans, and Americans while at the same time providing excellent propaganda material for the Kremlin’s agitprop mills, these people tend to tell you that they don’t care what anybody says- “Ukraine has a right to its own heroes! And we decide who those heroes will be and what their stories are!”

So in short- fuck people who do that and use this argument about airing dirty laundry in front of the Russians. Either you care about optics and values all the time, or you’re full of shit. And I also have little sympathy for chest-thumping patriots who claim not to give a fuck about what the Western world thinks of Ukraine, but then have their hand out, whining about why the US hasn’t sent them Javelins yet. Hey, partisan, why don’t you just defeat the Russian Federation the way your heroic UPA defeated the Soviet Union? Oh…Wait…That didn’t work out too well, did it? Well there’s no better strategy than glorifying failure and doing the same fucking thing over and over again no matter how many times its been shown not to work, right?

Now to be fair, it is true that Russia’s propaganda machine benefits from Saakashvili’s antics. It helps support their narrative that Ukraine is a chaotic basketcase and protesting never solves anything. On the other hand, however, it also casts doubt on the claim that Ukraine is run by this iron-fisted neo-Nazi junta as well as the claim that it poses some kind of threat to Russia.

Saakashvili’s pseudo-revolution is not the solution to Ukraine’s problems, obviously, but it’s a really bad idea to tailor one’s actions based on what the Russians might say about it. You cannot control what they will put out, so if you let them determine the limits of your discourse you’ve effectively let them control you. People say that Putin misunderstood Ukraine in 2014 and that’s why he failed to achieve all his goals there, but while I think there is some truth to that, the game really hasn’t changed so much that Putin and his strategists couldn’t rely on the bulk of their techniques in order to keep Ukraine pinned down and unable to move forward with progressive change. From cultural policy to Eurovision, we’ve seen how easily Moscow can still press Kyiv’s buttons because the game hasn’t really changed.

Anti-Corruption Activists are Full of Shit!

I’ve seen many variants of this argument, including one recently from a certain diaspora cheerleader so dense I half expect her to one day explode and create another universe. But that individual is just an extreme case. I know far smarter people who also react to the phrase “anti-corruption activist” with this:

reforms

Believe me, I get it. I realize that these people aren’t all angels and they don’t have all the answers to Ukraine’s corruption problems. If anything they’re also victims of an extremely narrow range of political discourse in Ukraine, where it seems you’re always faced with false dilemmas and viper-toad choices. I’ll get into why “anti-corruption” doesn’t work as a political strategy later, but for now let’s just say that if one side is demonstratively corrupt, as Poroshenko and his people appear to be, it’s really hard to go all out against anti-corruption organizations. The government has, in fact, brought a lot of this on themselves.

But there have been changes since Maidan!

Okay. Great. But not all these changes have been great, nor do they all matter to most people. This is a little like Donald Trump talking about how great the stock market is doing. If we just take one issue, such as salaries, you can kind of see where the problem lies.

Things like low salaries and corruption directly undermine the war effort because they support key points of the Russian narrative:

-Protesting does nothing; it only makes things worse

-Ukraine has become worse off after Maidan

-There’s no difference between living in “democratic” Ukraine or under Russian occupation

-Russia may be corrupt and less democratic, but salaries and pensions are higher

Without getting into too much detail here, rest assured that the only way Ukraine can hope to achieve victory or even a favorable peace against Russia is by reaching the people behind enemy lines. Those people would be taking an extreme risk taking part in an insurgency against the Russian occupiers. Would they do that for the promise of an average salary of 190 euros and the opportunity to pay bribes to patriotic Ukrainian officials as opposed to Russian-speaking ones? I doubt it.

Put simply, Ukraine must provide these people with convincing proof that they would have a better future in Ukraine, and that vision must be so real to them that they would be willing to risk death and torture to attain it. Visa free travel they can’t afford or vague talk about “reforms” just won’t cut it. Unfortunately I’ve seen many examples of the current Ukrainian intelligentsia not caring about this issue in the slightest. It seems only in Ukraine can you find “nationalists” who would happily give away swathes of their territory simply so they can have a safe space to build their fantasy version of Ukraine (even if that Ukraine might need to resemble a Russia-like authoritarian kleptocracy). That these people aren’t immediately dismissed as traitors shows us how much reform Ukrainian politics really needs.

Conclusion

It’s a clusterfuck. That’s about all I can say. Poroshenko and the status-quo defenders won’t defeat Russia if left alone, nor will they do anything about major corruption. Anti-corruption activists aren’t going to defeat it either. The only thing that’s going to have an impact is when you get a militant, well-trained left movement in Ukraine which demonstrates the ability to fight the war against the occupier while at the same time organizing against the corrupt officials and oligarchs. What the centrists, nationalists, and anti-corruption crusaders all lack is a coherent, realistic understanding of why there is corruption in the country in the first place, i.e. capitalism. Just as the American ruling class, perpetually at odds with the vast majority of Americans, is using its influence in government to appropriate a larger share of public wealth, Ukrainian oligarchs and officials use a more direct, less legalized form of doing the same. And for that matter, Russia’s ruling class is doing it as well.

Ukraine’s understanding of class struggle has been stunted by several factors. I’d say the most prominent would be the relatively late formation of Ukrainian statehood and the fact that when the former briefly became a reality, Ukraine had no Ukrainian capitalist class (individual Ukrainian capitalists existed, but they were typically Russified and disconnected from the peasant majority). The other obvious factor is the disdain for socialism that comes not only from the Soviet experience, but the abhorrent behavior of the so-called “Communist Party of Ukraine” since independence in 1991. To this we can also add those well-meaning leftists who still can’t help but regurgitate the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals or talking points about “peace.”

But whatever the popularity or lack thereof when it comes to class struggle, it is very real, and it is shaping the events that we see in Ukraine, from the Russian invasion (an act of neo-colonialism) to Mr. Saakashvili’s aborted “revolution.” The invasion and occupation must necessarily take precedence over all, but the idea that Ukraine could ever hope to defeat such a powerful opponent while it is ruled by criminals or even just self-interested businessmen whose goals clash with that of the majority of Ukrainians is simply ludicrous.

To put it another way, Ukraine can’t win until there’s a force that points out what ought to be obvious by now- not all Ukrainians are on the same side.

 

Damn. There I am on this soap box again. Sorry about that.

 

What Ukraine’s ‘Left’ Just Doesn’t Get

Apart from sharing similar political views, I don’t have much to do with Jacobin. It’s produced some very interesting articles but I don’t see much point in regularly reading a source that tells me what I already know or agree with. That being said, one thing that is consistently disappointing about Jacobin is their poor coverage of Ukraine.

Probably the worst offender on their site was this article by Daniel Lazare. It starts off rather good, taking Timothy Snyder to task for some of his ridiculous assertions in his very popular book The Bloodlands. Snyder is an accomplished historian and we definitely agree on a lot of things when it comes to the present, but one thing I cannot stand about him is his often emotionally-charged reinterpretation of historical facts and his pandering in the present. But Lazare goes from legitimate criticism of Snyder’s history to full-on Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine’s present later in the article. If Snyder was wrong in the past, he’s right in the present, pandering aside. And with Lazare it’s just the opposite.

But you could almost forgive Mr. Lazare because at least according to his bio (what I could find of it), he has no background in Ukrainian history, politics, or culture. I have no idea if he’s ever even visited Ukraine. One might be led to believe that he was getting his info from Russian sources like Sputnik or RT, but in fact that isn’t even necessary. There are plenty of other independent publications, and even supposedly independent Ukrainian sources, which produce this kind of drivel.

For an example of something much more subtle but far more dangerous because it deceives leftists, look no further than this more recent article by Alona Liasheva and Mikhail Khokhlovich. If I were to rate my reaction to this article as I read it, it basically proceeded in the following order: Strong suspicion > Okay that’s fair > Getting better > YOU FUCKING BLEW IT! Let us therefore go through the stages.

The article begins with the stabbing of Stanislav Serhienko, and attack which happened while I was living in Kyiv this year. Make no mistake about it- the attack was brutal and totally unjustifiable. But the authors use manipulative language so as to paint the picture of a neo-Nazi dominated Ukraine, exactly as Kremlin media would. Take a look at this sentence, for example:

“Serhienko had publicly criticized both Russia-backed separatists and the Ukrainian army, which had allied with far-right battalions in the war in the country’s east.”

The first thing that leaps out at me here is the claim that the Ukrainian army had allied with far-right battalions. For one thing, most of the volunteer battalions were more or less non-political or at least not far right. Second, it’s not like the Ukrainian military had much of a choice at that point in 2014. The whole Ukrainian armed forces had been in tatters since the 2000’s and was essentially a token army. Even after three years of war and with instruction from NATO armies, it is still rife with parasitical, corrupt, incompetent individuals, especially among the officer corps (I have some personal experience with this). In 2014, the government simply didn’t have the luxury of politically vetting every soldier who or volunteer who stepped up to perform a vital service at such a critical time, and knowing how cynical and burnt out many Ukrainians are when it comes to politics, I doubt anyone really cared. There were more pressing issues to deal with.

But what really angers me about this kind of talk is that it perpetuates the myth that the use of far-right organizations and volunteers is something exclusive to the Ukrainian side, which of course is bullshit. In reality, there were and still are far right elements on both sides, and one could reasonably argue that the Russian side has more far right elements, both from Russia and pro-Russian far-right parties from Europe. The only difference is that Russia, with its monolithic state structure, is far better at managing the optics.

I am one of the first people to call out the idiotic idea that the presence of neo-Nazis on the Russian side somehow cancels out those on the Ukrainian side. I do think the the far right in Ukraine, in spite of its lack of real political power, is a serious problem which must eventually be dealt with in order to achieve full victory over Russian aggression and occupation. But Khokhlovich seems to understand nothing about his potential audience, the Ukrainian people, or what they’ve been hearing from the Russian propaganda machine since 2014. Defeating the far right in Ukraine entails mobilizing the Ukrainian people against it, making them understand why the far right can never overcome Russian imperialism, and how they actually aid that imperialism indirectly (and occasionally directly). One way to start communicating that message more effectively is to tell the truth- both sides rely on far right elements, and Russia probably more.

The authors then go on to describe a number of other hate crimes in Ukraine, pointing out quite correctly that these crimes are rarely if ever prosecuted. Often no suspects are found. However, this is somewhat misleading because the sad truth is that much of what they describe occurs regularly not only in Russia, but also all throughout Eastern Europe. Hell, it’s happening a lot more in America these days as well. Russia’s SOVA center tracks hate crimes in Russia every year. In recent years, Russia’s government has been doing a better job about cracking down on far right nationalists. This is partially for optics, but it is also for internal stability. That does not mean, however, that the Kremlin doesn’t have legions of far right thugs to do its bidding in Ukraine or Russia, however- it just means they typically won’t be sporting swastikas. Furthermore, when they are attacking the “correct” targets, they not only attack with impunity, but do so often with the help of the state or state media.

I should also point out that anyone who believes the Kremlin has fully broken with the more radical ethno-nationalists in Russia is to say the least, extremely naive. The Kremlin, like many other authoritarian regimes, is infamous for using front groups or agents to manipulate and keep tabs on any political group. It is also worth noting that in spite of the government’s desire for national unity, the state media routinely produces racist and xenophobic material on a weekly basis. How can you tell the Russian people week after week that Europe is degenerating due to “tolerance” for rapacious Muslim hordes and expect them not to develop negative feelings towards Tajik and Uzbek guest workers, for example? It’s no secret that the Russian government supports and sometimes funds far right parties and organizations throughout the West, or that the state allows them to hold conferences in St. Petersburg without fear of being charged with “extremism.”

This might seem like splitting hairs or whataboutism, but it’s very important because the image that the authors of this article present is the typical Russian-slant, i.e. Ukraine is a country dominated or otherwise inherently associated with the far right, but Russia somehow isn’t. In reality, in Ukraine dealing with Pravy Sektor or Azov might be difficult, but if you’re up against a government-aligned far right group in Russia, you’re facing the full force of the Kremlin and its repressive machine. Even if one doesn’t go as far as to point that out, to be truly honest would mean acknowledging that Ukraine’s far right troubles are no worse than those in several other Eastern European countries.

Later in the article the author does make some fair points, for example explaining that the organization Borotba (which is inappropriately named), not only participated in the Anti-Maidan movement but then actually went over to support the separatists. What I didn’t see however, was any explanation as to how Borotba, in spite of claiming to be left-wing, has actually put out far right propaganda and justified alliances with the far right in the so-called DNR/LNR. It also mentions the banning of the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) without pointing out how corrupt it was, how some people called it the “Capitalist Party of Ukraine,” or how it was essentially itself a right wing party. Few Westerners are aware of the “Red-Brown” alliance that reared its ugly head in the wake of the Soviet collapse. In Russia, for example, wherever there’s a Soviet flag, there’s often an imperial tricolor.

wtfflag

And sometimes there are both in one, as in this monstrosity.

Lastly another thing must be said about the impunity with which the far right commits attacks in Ukraine. Khokhlovich lives there, which means he should be more than familiar with the level of lawlessness and corruption there.

In a country where public figures brazenly steal millions of dollars from the public and still get away with it, it’s not hard to understand why many of these street assaults go unpunished. The only way to get any justice is to generate sympathy, outrage, and popular support- and Ukraine’s left seems wholly incapable of doing that for reasons I’ll explore later.

Next the article contains some deceptive information about the assassination of Pavel Sheremet, claiming that “much evidence” points to far right involvement in that case. In reality, the evidence points primarily to the SBU, and thus the authors are equating SBU with far right. It would be more accurate to equate the SBU with organized criminal activity, not far right politics, and it is more likely that Sheremet’s killing was connected with exposing corruption rather than ideology.

Wrapping up the “suspicious” part of the article, I notice that it plays up the level of political representation the far right has in Ukraine. While the authors touch on the lack of representation, it wouldn’t have taken much effort to point out, for example, how there are no nationalist parties in the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament. Unless something’s changed from the last polls I’ve read (courtesy of Michael Colborne), in order to make the threshold to get seats, all of Ukraine’s far right parties would have to merge into one bloc. To be fair, I’ve heard rumors they might be considering this, but being well acquainted with far right politics tells me that would at best be a short-lived alliance. On the far right, there are always too many wannabe SS Obersturmführers and not enough SS Schützen. 

It also wouldn’t have taken much effort to show that Ukraine’s approval for the far right is far lower than it is in other countries, including supposedly tolerant Western Europe. Let’s face it- if Ukraine were such a far right-dominated country, the far right would do better, period. Western far right parties would be having their international conferences in Kyiv and not St. Petersburg.  If Ukrainians approved of the far right, they’d just vote for far right parties. What’s stopping them? The short answer, of course, is that most Ukrainians know that the far right have no real solutions for Ukraine and are often times little more than thugs with ties to criminal activity. They are not about to turn over true power to such people. These are all things the article should have pointed out.

I might also take a moment to mention how the article handles the subject of LGBT and tolerance in Kyiv. The Kyiv Pride March was extremely successful, which the authors acknowledge. They point out, however, that this was thanks to the large police and National Guard presence. Very true, but what they don’t tell you is that the crowd of marchers was far larger than the paltry group of nationalists who came out to oppose them. And yes, the city authorities did cave when far right activists objected to the painting of the Arch of Friendship as a rainbow, but when it comes to the issue of LGBT rights, progress is being made.

I will give the authors one more credit for devoting a whole section to how the state finds itself in conflict with the far right in Ukraine. By detailing the contradiction between the government and far right groups like Pravy Sektor, the authors either wittingly or unwittingly help break down the “nationalist junta” narrative- clearly nationalists wouldn’t be so violently opposed to a government that supposedly shared their values, after all. Gold star for that I suppose, but it’s about to get worse…

The poison pill of this article comes at the grand finale, the part where the authors totally destroy any credibility they had and inadvertently demonstrate just why the Ukrainian left can’t get any popularity in Ukraine these days. Ladies and gentlemen, behold the final conclusion of this article, the piece de merde! 

 “Real resistance to imperialist influence — from both Russia and the West — can only begin with a democratic dialogue with unrecognized republics based on the Minsk peace agreements, not repression against Ukrainian citizens.”

And that’s where you fucked up, son. First of all, the idea that Russian and Western imperialism are, for Ukraine at least, equal, is simply nonsense. Russia has invaded and occupied a significant portion of Ukrainian territory. The war that they started has killed over 10,000 Ukrainians and displaced nearly 2 million others. Did the West do that to Ukraine? No. You can talk all you want about the IMF or Western investment in Ukraine all you want- but no NATO country has literally killed people in Ukraine, nor have they occupied any part of it with their military. Only in the twisted bizarro-world logic of the Kremlin and its foreign supporters did anything resembling that happen, and that is in reality nothing more than a contrived a priori justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Rest assured that on the very day that a NATO military forcibly takes control of a part of Ukrainian territory against the wishes of its elected government, I will more than happily declare Western imperialism in Ukraine to be equivalent to its Russian counterpart, but not a minute sooner.

Far more egregious is the authors’ suggestion for “resistance” to said imperialism, which just happens to almost perfectly match Putin’s own demand to the Ukrainian government. It’s hard to decide where to begin when debunking such an idiotic suggestion, so bear with me.

First let me state that there is no way for Ukraine to begin a “democratic dialogue” with the unrecognized “republics,” because they are not democracies- they are puppet entities controlled by the Russian government, its military, and its intelligence services. They were never set up to be viable states or to achieve some kind of just demands on behalf of the Ukrainian residents of the Donbas (most of which is under Kyiv control, by the way). They were erected with the help of Russian mercenaries so as to give Moscow leverage with which to control Ukraine’s foreign policy and to secure the interests of certain Russian businessmen who had investments or other business ties to the east. The Ukrainian government already attempted such a dialog two times in 2014- once in April before the war actually started, offering full amnesty to those who were occupying buildings if they would lay down their arms, and the second was a unilateral ceasefire later in the summer of that year. The “rebels” also broke the first Minsk ceasefire and ignored the second until they had secured Debaltseve in early 2015. They have continued to break ceasefires ever since. Considering that the first point on the Minsk II agreement is a total ceasefire, how is one supposed to open up a dialogue, democratic or otherwise, with that?

Secondly, the reason Putin wants Ukraine to engage directly with his “republics” is because he wants to freeze the conflict in a manner similar to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Doing so would be a huge boon for Putin, allowing him to pull most of his forces out of the territory while trying to use the Minsk II agreement to get Ukraine to foot the bill for his military adventure. To be sure, the structure of Minsk II creates some contradictions which have turned the whole mess into a stalemate, but the Ukrainian government giving some kind of de facto recognition to the “republics” would go a long way toward accomplishing Putin’s aims.

While the authors make token comments about Russia’s role in the war, they never call out Russia for what it’s actually done. The onus always seems to be on Kyiv to solve a problem they didn’t create. This is typical of many Putin apologists out there, and if the authors do not consider themselves to be Putin apologists, they might want to consider their wording a bit more carefully. For example- don’t basically repeat the Kremlin’s demands almost verbatim.

To be sure, I believe that the population of Eastern Ukraine and of the occupied territory will play a crucial role in the liberation of the country, far more so than anyone in the West. But the dialogue cannot be with Russia’s puppets. It must be with the people themselves, and it must be a dialogue about resistance to Russian occupation. Nothing else will matter. And I have no time for those who disingenuously object to this, saying that it would lead to more violence. Violence has already come to Donbas- Russia brought it. It will remain so long as they are occupying that territory. If one objects to violence aimed at ending that occupation, then what is to stop Russia from grabbing more territory, killing people in the process, and then demanding “peace” for the sake of “human life?” Send the butcher’s bill to Moscow for those who have been killed or maimed in Putin’s war.

And this, it pains me to say, is why Ukraine’s paltry left is so hated or ignored in their own country. The far right may be run by immoral criminals commanding ignorant football hooligans, but when their country was invaded and Ukrainians started dying, they stepped up and did something- they had just enough functioning braincells to figure that out. Where was the “left?” On many occasions they were on the wrong side of the barricades, either backing the invader or playing down the threat- which in fact only amounts to allying with a far right, reactionary regime which has far more resources and power. I’ve had conversations with some of these figures who keep demanding peace, acting like both sides are equally guilty in this war, and refusing to acknowledge when I point out that it is Moscow, not Kyiv, who holds the key to peace. And I must confess sometimes I want to smack them, either because they do in fact have a pro-Kremin agenda or because they are so dense as to not notice they sound that way.

I’m going to be very frank with the rest of the Ukrainian left- if you want to win hearts and minds, if you want society to be outraged and favor you instead of turning a blind eye to the far right and the self-proclaimed patriots, you must stand up for Ukraine. You must call out the main threat to Ukraine- Russian aggression. If you had any proper Marxist theoretical grounding and praxis you would know that a foreign colonial power dominated by a reactionary regime trumps internal contradictions. This has been put into practice several times in the 20th century- in Vietnam, China, Albania, and Yugoslavia to name a few examples.

Is there anyone so foolish as to think that if there had been real Ukrainian leftist volunteer battalions, the political situation would be as it is today? Sure, the government might be more uneasy about them than they are with far right battalions, but that could be offset by popular support. Maybe I’m just getting old,but I’m pretty sure popular support is kind of an important in a war of resistance and a socialist revolution.

Imagine, for the moment, something that may seem impossible today. Imagine a leftist inspired militant organization begins a guerrilla campaign against Russia’s proxies in the east, pulling off daring attacks that neither the Ukrainian army or even the Azov regiment would ever even consider possible. In short- imagine this leftist militant faction gets results. Do you think attitudes would be unchanged? Do you think people wouldn’t raise hell if the government attempted to crack down on this rogue movement, if it were the one thing in Ukraine the Kremlin actually feared?

Of course things would be different. In fact, I predict it would be the political death of the far right- they’ve had so many years to beat their chests and shout their slogans without actually achieving any results. If a leftist militant movement could step up and achieve what the “patriots” could not in four years with the support of the state, there’d be red flags flying next to blue and yellow ones in Kyiv. Volodymyr Viatrovytch could do nothing but sputter and tear his hair out with impotent nerd rage and nobody would listen.

But alas, it seems the Ukrainian “left” can’t even work up the courage to verbally condemn Russian imperialism without false equivalencies, which is why my hypothetical about a Ukrainian leftist Hezbollah-style resistance movement seems so laughably fantastical at the moment. I guess it will remain so for the foreseeable future, unless either this article becomes wildly popular or I win the lottery here in the States so I can fund shit just like Ukraine’s oligarchs do.

And thus once again, Jacobin fails to make a solid connection between the Western left and Ukraine. It’s not that there aren’t ways, either. Stephen Velychenko, for example, has provided some good work on this topic. The failure of Western leftists to develop a solid line on Ukraine is yet another reason why leftist politics are still unpopular in the country. Many Ukrainians hold progressive values, many of them are almost socialist or at least social-democrat in their outlook. They’d probably find much common ground with Western radical leftists, because the idea that capitalism is Ukraine’s biggest problem is basically on the tip of everyone’s tongue (as usual, even the far-right engages in anti-capitalist rhetoric). But what happens when those Ukrainians try to reach out and see things like these Jacobin articles? I mean this is a bit of an improvement because at least one of the authors is actually in Ukraine, but in many other cases pieces about the supposed right-wing domination of Ukraine are written by people who have never even been there. This does nothing but convince Ukrainians that the international left has dismissed them offhand as Nazis based on Kremlin propaganda.

To wrap up, let me once against reiterate. Yes, the far right is a big problem in Ukraine. But it is a problem largely thanks to the war that Russia initiated, and that war takes precedence over almost every other issue out there. If the left is able to demonstrate that it is more able to resist and repel Russian imperialism than the right, it will gain more popular support, and then it will be able to better push through its revolutionary changes. The left will not accomplish this by attacking the concept of pro-Ukrainianism, rather it must show how it is in fact the true pro-Ukrainian force, and that the self-proclaimed patriots, most of them hypocritical criminal parasites or street thugs, are in fact objectively anti-Ukrainian. It should point out that it was the radical Marxist left, and not the reactionary far right nationalists (who did not even exist at the time), that gave birth to the modern Ukrainian state in 1917, and that the roots of true, original Ukrainian nationalism were always the progressive ideals of revolutionaries like Hrushevsky, Vynnychenko, and Ukrainka, and not the twisted reactionary fascism of Dontsov, Bandera, or Shukhevych.

hrushevsky

“So you call your little group the Organization for Ukrainian Nationalists. That’s just precious.” 

Do not confuse this with some kind of call for “patriotism.” It is a call to stand up and recognize that Ukraine faces an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial struggle. The day may very well come when the next imperialist threat is from NATO or the EU, but it is not this day. Today, and for the foreseeable future, that most pressing threat cannot be anything but the Putin regime, followed closely by their proxies and the reactionary criminals of the Ukrainian ruling class. If Ukraine’s left cannot stand up and proclaim that simple truth which is self-evident to even the most politically apathetic Ukrainians, they have no one to blame but themselves for their failures.

Oh the Places You’ll Go…to Die!

Recently Russia lost a high-ranking general in Syria. Lt. General Valery Asapov (nope, not Valery Gerasimov in disguise) was killed along with two colonels in a mortar attack near the town of Deir-ez-Zor. Apart from the high rank of the deceased, this wouldn’t be particularly remarkable were it not for the fact that Asapov commanded the “1st Army Corps” of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic in a conflict that Russia calls a “civil war” and swears it has no part in.

Isn’t it amazing how despite being a “civil war” and an “internal matter” of Ukraine, so many Russian military personnel have taken part with zero reprimand from the Russian government? Here we have a general who decided to go on vacation to fight in a conflict for a “country” his government does not recognize, and then he returned to the Russian army with zero consequences (possibly with a promotion) and got deployed to Syria.

Given Russia’s constant denials (against overwhelming evidence to the contrary) of any significant involvement in this “civil war,” you think they’d want to come down hard on all these “volunteers,” especially the military personnel who supposedly “went on leave” to fight for Ukraine. I guarantee you that if US military personnel took leave and then joined the YPG in Syria, or any other military force for that matter, there would be hell to pay. For starters that’s desertion, plain and simple. Yet the only deserters the Kremlin sees happen to be those who left the army because they say they were being pressured to sign contracts and fight in Ukraine. Curioser and curiouser.

The Wallet Inspector

So recently the US and Germany have, for some strange reason, reacted with measured optimism toward Vladimir Putin’s latest suggestions about a UN peacekeeping mission in the Donbas region of Ukraine. What a great guy- he starts a war and then sells you the solution! Seriously though, I’m disturbed that the State Department and the German Ministry didn’t immediately tell Putin to shove his peacekeeping plan up his own ass once they heard his “conditions.”

Essentially Putin wants the UN peacekeeping mission to include Russian participation (yeah I’m sure they’ll be totally impartial), he wants it to involve direct negotiations with his proxy actors in the occupied territory, and it should patrol the line of contact between his pseudo-states and government-controlled territory. Just as others have already pointed out, this amounts to nothing but an attempt to solidify control over the occupied territories and permanently freezing the conflict in the manner of Transnistria, South Ossetia, or Abkhazia. UN peacekeepers will keep Ukraine’s armed forces from retaking the territory and possibly firing back when his proxies decide to loose a few shells, and the world will treat the conflict according to the Kremlin’s rhetoric, i.e. as a “civil war.” As if all this weren’t enough to convince you that this plan is nothing but Kremlin bullshit, check out the “DNR/LNR” reaction to the plan, as reported by Russian state media.

Basically, Putin’s “peacekeeping initiative” is the diplomatic equivalent of the “wallet inspector” scam. While it’s obvious he’s not acting in good faith, it’s interesting to speculate why he might be offering this now. There do seem to be signs that Russia might be trying to extricate itself from Donbas. Since early 2015, Russia’s objective has been to shove the territories back into Ukraine so that Kyiv is forced to pay for them while maintaining proxy forces there which could continue to influence Ukrainian politics in the Kremlin’s favor. Of course Kyiv is well aware of Putin’s desire to have his cake and eat it too, which is why they have no plans to grant Russia’s conditions of Minsk II before Russia grants their demands, such as control over the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Putin’s latest offer just seems like an attempt to make an end run around this impasse and perhaps cut costs associated with supplying his proxy forces in the region. Also, if there are Russian “peacekeepers” there, Putin can always use an alleged attack on them as pretext to invade and take more territory, or at least punish the Ukrainian Armed Forces and destabilize the situation for Kyiv. Like in the 2008 Georgia War, Russia would benefit from being able to claim retaliation for attacks on “peacekeepers.”

I could go on, but I think by now it’s painfully clear that there is absolutely nothing good in this offer and really the best answer the US or any country could have sent to Putin would have been a note on official letterhead reading:

Dear Mr. Putin,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No. 

Sincerely yours,

(Department/Ministry name)

The media can also help. When reporting on Putin’s peace overtures, they can point out that Putin is actually a party to the conflict, as well as its initiator. As my friend Paul Niland in Kyiv has often pointed out, reporters should stop reporting Russian denials on involvement without adding that said denials are contradicted by “overwhelming evidence.” It’s clear that one more motive for this latest ploy is for Putin to once again promote himself as a peacemaker and advocate of stability. The media shouldn’t give him the opportunity.

Lastly, while everyone’s making wild proposals about peacekeeping missions here, let me present my official Russia Without BS United Nations Peacekeeping Plan for the Donbas (patent pending). It works like this:

Russia pulls all forces out of the Donbas. 

UN Peacekeeping troops deploy along the Russian-Ukrainian border, on the Russian side of it, with the mission of preventing Russia from invading again. 

Crimea, Kuban, and Far East go to Ukraine as reparations.

Sanctions are removed so Russia no longer has to squash cheese with bulldozers.

You may call it extreme, but it’s a small price to pay for peace and stability in the region. You’re not against peace,are you?

Veiled Threat or Realistic Admission?

Those who have been following Russia’s war on Ukraine have no doubt heard the increased buzz about the US potentially supplying lethal arms to the Ukrainian military. While I’m all for supplying Ukraine with military technology (though there’s a big difference between what they want and what they actually need), I find the hype to be ridiculous when you actually look at what US officials are saying. Basically Putin enthusiastically dumps tons of weapons and military vehicles into Ukraine without any reservations whatsoever, while US officials say things like “the US is now seriously considering the possibility of providing lethal weapons…” and the talking heads act like this is a sincere promise, as though the weapons are currently being crated for transport as we speak. Of course on the US side, and only the US side, there are also pundits who object to such transfers, but their arguments are typically poor.

Recently, Vladimir Putin reacted to the question of US arms for Ukraine during a press conference at the BRICS summit. His comments were rather ambiguous, with the first half seeming to indicate no reaction and the last half being a veiled threat about taking more territory in Ukraine. I give you his quotes here, translated by the Ukrainian UNIAN news service.

“This is a sovereign decision [providing lethal aid to Ukraine] of the U.S., whom to sell weapons or supply them for free, and the country that is the recipient of such assistance. We will not be able to influence this process in any way,” Putin said.

According to him, “there are international rules and approaches: the supply of weapons to the conflict zone does not contribute to the peace settlement, but only aggravates the situation.”

 “If this happens in this case, this decision will not fundamentally change the situation, in general will not affect the situation change, but the number of victims, of course, may grow,” Putin said. “I want to emphasize so that everyone understands – nothing will change,” the Russian president vowed.

“There is one more point to which those bearing such ideas should pay attention. This is about the fact that the self-proclaimed republics have enough weapons, including those seized from the opposing side – from nationalist battalions and so on. And if American weapons will be delivered to the conflict zone, it will be difficult to say how the proclaimed republics will act. Maybe they will get their weapons to other conflict zones that are sensitive to those who create problems for them,” Putin said.”

As far as interpreting the statement as a veiled threat, it seems that UNIAN focused on the last quote, wherein Putin hilariously claims that the “self-proclaimed republics” are somehow well armed entirely from captured weapons and, presumably, weapons that they either somehow manufactured or acquired from abroad. I tend to think the key takeaway in Putin’s statement comes before that, where he stresses there will be no change. Basically he’s posturing, trying to signal to the West that he won’t back down in Ukraine. To understand why you have to look at what “arming Ukraine” means in Western parlance.

Since the battle of Debaltseve in 2015, “arming Ukraine” has basically been boiled down to one issue- Javelins. For those non-military types out there I’ll give you the quick crash course. The FGM-148 Javelin is arguably the most effective portable anti-tank weapon in the world right now. It is “fire-and-forget,” meaning the operator does not have to guide the missile to its target and therefore can relocate to another position upon firing. It has incredibly long range, over 4 kilometers or nearly 3 miles. It also attacks from the top, where tanks are most vulnerable.

 

Of course there are some caveats- the system is extremely expensive and it’s not exactly a magic “Make Tanks Go Away” wand. We cannot say for sure how they would have affected the outcome of a battle like Debaltseve. More importantly, plenty of experts have correctly pointed out that Ukraine actually produces plenty of high-quality anti-tank missiles on its own– the problem is that Ukraine’s arms industry often fails to adequately deliver its products to the front. Ukraine’s arms industry also produces another product which is good at knocking out Russian tanks- they’re called other tanks.

But Putin’s quote about arms not making a difference may serve as another reminder of why the arm Ukraine debate should constantly revolve around Javelins. I’ve been saying for some time that Javelins would make little difference given the situation and the Ukrainian government’s position on the war. They can only serve as a deterrent to a Russian attempt to advance in the Donbas, something which they don’t seem interested in doing. Putin’s comment would seem to confirm this. Everything in 2014 from the Crimean annexation to the attempt at creating “Novorossiya” was nothing but a big gamble to see what Russia could get away with. After Minsk II in 2015, Putin knows his limit of advance. So in other words, Javelins would definitely serve as a deterrent, but they’d be deterring something Russia’s not planning to do.

Just to be sure, the Javelins could serve as a deterrent to something I’ve long worried about, especially after the winter of 2016-2017, which is a sort of punitive raid or small offensive aimed solely at isolating and destroying a Ukrainian front-line unit, in a place like Avdiivka or the so-called Svitlodarsk bulge. But beyond this, the only thing Javelins would be good for is sniping the occasional tank which comes up to the front to take potshots from time to time. The Russians could simply halt this practice and rely on their long-range artillery to keep inflicting casualties on Ukrainian forces. They’d be better off for it.

Of course there are ways Ukraine could use Javelins in a more offensive manner to actually retake territory, but the government clearly doesn’t have the stomach for that and doing so would require the military to adopt unconventional, insurgent-style tactics, something that conventional military forces typically don’t do unless they’re absolutely forced to. The Ukrainian military has worked so hard just to achieve a minimum of professionalism as a conventional army that I can’t imagine there’d be anyone among the top brass willing to consider more revolutionary methods of warfare, which is a pity because personally I think Ukraine’s only hope lies in such bold, unconventional strategies and tactics.

Getting back to the topic at hand, one can still read Putin’s final comment as a veiled threat, but it’s most likely an empty one. The meat of this statement is that he’s calling the whole situation a stalemate by saying that new weapons won’t make a difference. For the moment, at least, arms can only serve as a deterrent to something he’s not planning to do.

Of course there is one scenario in which Putin might make good on his threat, and US leaders and other officials had better pay close attention. Although the Russians naturally tell themselves that the US has been arming Ukraine this whole time (this is the a priori justification that Russia’s leaders so often use), if they see the US seriously talking about the matter they might choose to act before those weapons arrive and rule out something like a small-scale offensive. This could serve as a major spoiler and let the Russians chalk up one more operational victory to go along with Crimea, Ilovaisk, and Debaltseve. Therefore if the US actually wants to help and thinks the arms will make a difference, it would be a lot better if they would stop making ambiguous statements and hinting signals at Putin and just provide the missiles. Realistically, what Ukraine actually needs is more advanced electronic warfare platforms, but the rapid shipment and deployment of Javelins could at least prevent or deter a potential “now-or-never” offensive action from the Russian side.

Then again, you might choose to ignore Putin’s comments as another example of his increasingly delusional, rambling statements. After all, this is the guy who seems to have no idea whether he wants to run for president next spring, nor does he seem to have any idea what is supposed to come after him. Perhaps the real key to Putin’s statement is when he said Russia can’t do anything to influence America’s decision. Maybe the confidence from 2014 is beginning to wear off like a crystal meth high, and he’s starting to realize that all this time he’s been punching far above his weight (it’s easy when your opponents are all centrist dipshits who can’t fathom the idea that someone would question their so-called “norms of behavior”). Fatigue, desperation, belligerence? Who can say what’s going through that little man’s mind at this point?