The enemy of our enemy is not our friend. That much should be clear to anyone who is genuinely interested in better understanding and radically changing the world. Hence, it has been somewhat surprising and bothersome to see so many leftists praise Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent years.
What makes this observation even more interesting is the fact that leftists around the globe, as recently as 2012, lauded the feminist-punk-protest group, Pussy Riot, a protest entity hell-bent on challenging Putin’s political power. But those days are long-gone. Today, many on the Left hail Putin as the counterweight to U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, a nation ravaged by totalitarian policies, proxy wars, sectarianism, climate change and globalization.
Interestingly, the same is true on the Right: conservative radio hosts, FoxNews commentators, Europe’s far-Right and neofascist business mogul and U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump have all recently applauded Putin. In turn, Putin has praised Trump. Maria Alekhina, aka Masha of Pussy Riot, recently had this to say about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin:
“When Putin came to his first term or second term, nobody [in Russia] actually thought that this is serious. Everybody was joking about it. And nobody could imagine that after five, six years, we would have a war in Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, and these problems in Syria,” in which Russia has become involved.
Everybody [is] joking about Donald Trump now, but it’s a very short way from joke to sad reality when you have a really crazy president speaking about breaking every moral and logic norm. So I hope that he will not be president. That’s very simple.”
Without doubt, the Right’s fascination with Putin is directly connected to their hatred for U.S. President Barrack Obama. Remember, when Bush was in office, these same rightwing forces lashed out at the Kremlin. Interestingly, the same was true in 2013, when the vast majority of U.S. Congress rejected Obama’s plans for bombing Syria. Was the Right suddenly concerned with human rights? Of course not. Was rejecting Obama’s militarized policies politically expedient? Of course it was: at the time, the majority of American citizens opposed U.S. bombing of Syria. When international opinion flipped, the Right criticized Obama for not acting sooner.
Several of my leftwing friends have said to me, “Vince, isn’t it great that Putin is sticking it to Obama and the West?” To which I reply, “No, I’m not interested in scoring petty political points or playing petty political games.” After all, shouldn’t the Left have more nuance and sophistication than the Right? Isn’t that the major difference between the two ideological poles? Indeed, the Left should be comprised of thinkers, not reactionaries.
All of this should be expected from our rightwing foes, but surely not our leftwing allies, right? Wrong. This is especially true in the case of Syria: leftists routinely lionize Bashar al-Assad, while casually glossing over his regime’s countless human rights abuses, atrocities and crimes. Again, the Left has a long history of this behavior. In the past, various leftist individuals and organizations have supported Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Muammar Gaddafi and countless other authoritarian regimes.
Here, the fundamental problem with the Left, is dichotomous thinking. The Left, much like the Right, often sees the world in black and white: capitalism is bad, socialism is good; non-hierarchical structures are good, hierarchical structures are bad; anti-U.S. forces are good, pro-U.S. forces are bad; anyone fighting Western imperialism is good, and so on (for more on false dichotomies, I suggest reading this essay from fellow teleSUR English writer Paul Street). Clearly, activists interested in radically transforming the existing world should reject dichotomous thinking, as it is quite toxic and counterproductive.
Further, I would like to think that the Left is more than capable of examining current events in a complex fashion. Sure, when the U.S. behaves aggressively or illegally, as it so often does, leftists should condemn Uncle Sam’s imperial actions, as they commonly do. However, at the same time, the Left should be capable of critiquing all forms of state and corporate power, regardless of where those state-corporate forces originate and thrive.
Leftists around the globe should be seeking political partnerships with radical organizers and grassroots movements working to challenge concentrated state and corporate power in Russia. These groups exist, but they endure harsh political repression. Indeed, the same is true in the Middle East and North Africa. Plenty of progressive forces exist in these regions, yet most leftists are marginalized, if not outwardly attacked, not only by their own governments, but also by terrorist organizations, international NGOs, foreign armies and leftwing activists who see the world in simple terms.
For example, as Sarah Lazare notes, anti-imperialist organizations in the West have plenty of progressive allies in Iraq. It is simply untrue that in order to oppose the war on Iraq one must also have supported Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime (the same was true in Libya nine years later, but the Left played the same ideological games and made the same political mistakes). Groups such as the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), the Popular Movement to Save Iraq, the Student and Youth Organization of a Free Iraq and Iraq’s Electrical Utility Workers Union rejected Western imperialism and simultaneously challenged the corruption and crimes of Saddam’s former regime, and the U.S.-backed regimes post-2003.
Remember, the ultimate task of the Left is to challenge power and to formulate alternatives to existing institutions and political-economic arrangements – in Russia and around the world. Throughout history, the Left’s strength has been to provide an institutional critique of society, not subjective interpretations of world events. In other words, leftists should focus on the ways in which state and corporate power manifest around the globe, not how individuals such as Putin or Obama operate within those structures. After all, we want a different society, correct? Or, are we simply happy to score petty political points when Putin makes Obama and the West look like imbeciles on the international political scene?
In a world fascinated with individuals, personalities, affects, images and symbols, it’s not surprising that both the Left and the Right admire Vladimir Putin. No one is immune to the disease of neoliberalism. Most importantly, our struggles are universal in nature. We face a global system that requires global resistance. For the most part, working-class and poor people throughout the world do not decide their future: corporate and state forces do. Russians have little say when, if, or how Russian bombs will be dropped. And isn’t this our fundamental dilemma: lack of political agency and power?
In the end, our job is to remain utterly critical, regardless of what country or president is in question. Accordingly, when Russian policies are counter to the values and principles of the Left, or when Russian bombs kill innocent civilians, activists should speak-out and protest, not make excuses for state crimes and corruption.
Vincent Emanuele can be reached at [email protected].
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
6 Comments
Because we Left (at least in Europe) don’t.
Surprise, surprise: Russians are our neighbours. We don’t f*cking care whom they’re electing for their president. We want to live in peace with our neighbours. And that’s why we totally dislike the New Cold War the US and EU are setting up.
This war would be HERE, not on the North American continent.
Russia’s dominant news media give fawning coverage of Vladimir Putin’s interactions and physical exploits. For example, Vesti ran a segment today covering Putin training with the Russian judo team in Sochi, with the commentator gushing over Putin’s achievements. The official government channel is similar, which surely helps his ratings. I very much agree with comments about the US and NATO’s aggressive expansion threatening Russia, and the US and EU’s destabilizing meddling in Ukraine. Putin’s popularity stems in part from favorable stability in Russia during his time in national office, compared to the rapacious ’90s. But this time of soft authoritarianism in Russia is very problematic, starting in Russia itself. We leftists should be supportive of movements within Russia that threaten the current system, such as the protests by truckers against the unfair and corrupt “Platon” taxes imposed this year. And Vince is right that we should not be cheering largely indiscriminate bombing and missile strikes in civilian areas by any government or group, but instead looking to organizations on the ground that have good values and are doing good work, like those he mentioned in Iraq.
Many on the Left hail Putin as a counterweight to US hegemony in the Middle East because he IS a counterweight to US hegemony in the Middle East. I am not suggesting that Putin is not without his flaws, but he has radically improved the state of Russian society since coming to office. This likely explains his overwhelming popularity in Russia. Putin constantly speaks of the importance of upholding international law, and frankly I am thankful that someone of his stature is trying to derail America’s longstanding and brutally destructive global domination project. Without Russian aid, the Syrian government would likely not be able to withstand the Western-backed Jihadi offensive. I think the overwhelming majority of Syrians would prefer a country under Assad at this point than a Caliphate under ISIS and Co. Is there a third option? Should we wait for the radical leftists from the West to draft up a non-hierarchical anarcho-syndicalist New World Order that will overthrow capitalism and militarism? We could be waiting awhile. Of course Leftists need to be creating alternative models to capitalism, but this does not preclude tipping the hat to Putin for challenging the aggression of NATO and its jihadi allies, and imploring that nations respect international law.
Capitalism is bad. It has no objectively redeeming values whatsoever. Concentrating wealth and power — therefore all social decision-making — in the hands of a few is guaranteed to lead to the destruction of human life (and many other forms of life.)
While we struggle to create alternatives to capitalism — and Emanuele mentions a number of those alternatives — there is no way to reform capitalism into something useful or benevolent.
Vincent
I do not love Vladimir Putin but I do have a level of admiration for him. As the President of Russia, he has a responsibility to do what he thinks is in the best interests of Russia. I believe that he generally fulfils this duty.
In the case of Syria, I believe that President Putin is the only leader with a coherent strategy. Russia are, rather belatedly it has to be said, supporting their ally – the Syrian Government. It follows, therefore, that any enemy of the Syrian Government is likely to find themselves under attack from the Russian military. We are too far down the line now to start trying to create a beautiful western style democracy in Syria. What do you want? Secular government or Wahabi inspired caliphate that kills all non-sunni infidels? As far as I can see, the Russian game is the only one in town.
The Russians have a genuine concern about the spread of the Wahabist mantra into Russia. They are basically trying to degrade it in Syria before it arrives in Russia.
I believe that the Syrian bloodbath is the direct result of US/Israel destabilising Syria before, during and after the Arab Spring. A Mordor-like Syria would weaken Iran and remove another potential Israeli enemy. Saddam – gone; Quadaffi – gone; Assad – going; Israel – stronger. Belatedly, President Putin has finally learned that the west cannot be trusted in anything that it says and does in foreign policy matters. He has finally decided that Russia must make a stand and Syria is the battleground. Russia were not responsible for the destabilisation of Syria but, hopefully, they might be part of the solution.
Which leads me on to Ukraine. Promises were made to then President Gorbachev that if East and West Germany were re-assimilated then there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO. Again, the West lied – Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc became members of NATO, leaving only Ukraine. Now remember, twice in the twentieth century Ukraine was the corridor through which Russia was attacked leaving somewhere between 20 and 40 million dead Russians. Russia have good reason to be alarmed by what goes on at their numerous borders. Ukraine is the final straw. The western half of the country is, and always has been, Euro-centric but the eastern half has always viewed itself more Russo-centric. The US has consciously spent $6Billion to destabilise Ukraine in an attempt to weaken Russia. President Putin has no option but for Russia to stand its ground to try to prevent Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
So why the anti-Putin rhetoric, Vincent? As far as I can see he is only doing what the Russian people elected him to do in the first place – to look after Russia’s interests.
And, no, I was not a member of the Pussy Riot fan club a few years back. Had they broken into Westminster Abbey in London and performed their juvenile act on the alter then I am sure that they would have been arrested just as they were in Russia.
Best Wishes
John Andrews
London
seems to me that putin’s policies in ukraine and syria (and beyond) are much more reasonable and intelligent than those of the usa and nato. he is more interested in a relatively peaceful world than any mainstream politician in our war mongering country. this is not to say he is a wonderful human being – just smarter and better than anyone we will get to vote for. while we can think about the “lefts” ultimate task we still must make choices based on how the world works today.