Discussion about this post

User's avatar
richardstevenhack's avatar

"since Russia was unable to seize the whole of Ukraine (falsely imputing this to have been Moscow’s objective, from the start)"

There are two problems with that neocon plan and with Crooke's comment:

1) The war isn't over yet, and the Russians aren't interested in a freeze. What happens when the Russians really do go to the Polish border? Biden's "we stopped Russia" goes out the window - although I suppose he can claim that when Russia doesn't take Poland he can claim it again. If I were Putin, I'd take Poland just to prove Biden wrong. :-)

2) Assuming Russia didn't want to seize all of Ukraine is a persistent Crooke failure, much like everyone else in the pro-Russian camp. I do think Putin and Lavrov wanted an early end to the conflict in March-April, 2022, but subsequently Plan B went into effect and now Ukraine gets taken off the board permanently -- no "rump state" crap.

As for Israel, they just compounded their error of assassinating a Hamas official in Lebanon by assassinating a HEZBOLLAH commander in Beirut. Nasrallah will have to take the gloves off now. Hezbollah severely damaged an airbase with some sixty missiles, which is 0.06 percent of what they can drop on Israel. Huffington Post has an article citing some "US officials" saying "no one can rein in Biden" as his crowd plans a wider Mid-East war.

"Yes, it may seem dark before the dawn; but, that dawn will come and conquer the darkness."

And that light at the end of the tunnel is the express train roaring toward you. :-)

Expand full comment
bevin's avatar

You make an interesting point. And one which takes up the Crooke idea that the West will need a new narrative to account for its failures in Ukraine. One that refers to Walsh's song too.

Let me explain: the "West" that seemed superior, in a different league from the rest of the world and destined-effortlessly-to win. Despite its continual mistakes and follies (Vietnam, Chile, Apartheid South Africa and Israel even then) was a polity that had emerged from the Secod World War. Its most obvious and attractive feature was the high living standard of its populace. In Europe and the UK high living standards were bolstered by a full range of welfare state benefits which, inter alia, enabled regular and large scale social mobility.

The situation in the USA was different- it lacked most of the welfare state systems of Europe, though it inherited, inthe University Education systems of the states, for example, many features of the egalitarianism of the C19th, together with thr fruits of World War Two and New Deal

In both cases the inter-related driving forces were, firstly, the strength of the Unions emerging from the war which forced capitalism to compromise (in an era when it was easy to do so) with Labour. And secondly the very real fear-particularly felt in France and Italy- in all capitalist societies that communism has many attractive features, which it was necessary to compete with in order to protect the status quo.

By 1981, as Karl notes, the reaction had set in: Thatcherism/Reaganism was driving back the popular and populist advances of the previous thirty years. The long and sustained ideological warfare against socialism in all its forms had begun to produce generations with no attraction to the ideas which underlay the welfare state: Generation X was an easy mark for the new rightwing politicians. A reaction against the verities of the post war consensus had set in: all the nonsense regarding the Nazis and their equation with communists, followed by narratives in which the epochal crimes of Hitlerism were trivialised or downplayed (with the Israeli Holocaust narrative being a solitary exception- and even that was sugar coated with the invention that communists were anti-semitic) and Operation Barbarossa began to be described as a defensive measure necessitated by (entirely mythical) soviet aggression.

In other words the Nazis, who had carefully kept their organisatin intact and their powder dry in emigration, began to become respectable again.

Hence in Ukraine NATO's open and unashamed alliance with fascists acting as fascists- eradicating opposition, celebrating Nazis, wiping out cultures, reviving untermenschen doctrines of racial superiority even reproducing the old SS tropes about slavs.

The obvious narratve way out for the West, now, is to blame the Nazis in Ukraine- blame them for killing morale by dividing the people, ethnically and selling out on living standards- blaming them for the corruption and the cronyism etc.

But that way out obvious enough cannot be taken now because the West has become indistinguishable from the enemy it defeated and took legitimacy from having defeated in 1945. Look at Israel in Gaza, at the culmination of a steady adoption of ever more extreme versions of fascism, beginning with Jabotinsky's revisionism.

Which leads one to a question which none of us has looked at yet, which is what limit can there be to the de-Nazification that Russia insists is its war aim? Wipe out the Ukrainian Nazis-despatch them back to Montreal and Edmonton- and there will still be scads of them dominating politics in the Baltic countries, eastern Europe. And, increasingly in the west: Mussolini's heritage has been revived in Meloni's government. Petain's in Macron's-with LePen waiting in the wings. Francoism is back in a big way in Spain and there are similar stories to be told of all the EU's members And the EU (hello von der Leyen) itself.

Maybe the Rest of the World has to start thinking in terms of a cordon sanitaire around the golden billion.

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts