(An anti-fascist ‘international democratic movement’ is the order of the day and I’m happy to share this statement signed by David Mackenzie and Ken Mansell who were activists in solidarity with the Vietnamese during the American war in Vietnam. I don’t know why the term ‘Left’ is applied to the individuals/groups critiqued in the statement. It is not possible to be an apologist for and/or supporter of Putin and also be left-wing. The need to popularize the concept ‘pseudo-left’ cannot be separated from the building of an international anti-fascist movement in solidarity with people fighting for democracy).
****
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has ignited a crisis with far-reaching global implications and consequences. The rise of reactionary extremism in many countries, including the United States of America, the Russian Federation, and parts of Western Europe, raises the spectre of the internationalisation of 21st Century neo-fascism and authoritarianism.
Russia attacks Ukraine
The Kremlin’s ‘special military operation’ has failed to take down Ukraine. Ukraine did not collapse, the Government did not flee the country, and the Russian assault on Kyiv was a military disaster. The invading army has conducted a reign of terror in the occupied areas leading the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for President Putin to answer allegations of war crimes. Russia continues to rain down destruction on critical civilian infrastructure, including the ecocidal sabotage of the Kakhovka Dam.
Sixteen million people have become refugees or been displaced within Ukraine, and many civilians continue to die as a result of Russian bombardment.
Since 1991, and after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine started off in similar positions, but have since moved in very different directions. In both countries, the rapid ‘shock therapy’ privatisation of state assets and resources created an elite of ultra-wealthy oligarchs. Under Putin, the Russian Federation has progressively become more and more authoritarian and is now one of the most repressive countries in the world, arguably a leading example of 21st Century neo-fascism. By contrast, in Ukraine, popular movements challenged the corrupt elites, mobilised to overthrow their Moscow aligned political front men, and strived to build a more democratic and European-oriented country.
The Putin regime, and the kleptocrats and criminal syndicates that support and benefit from the regime, are threatened by the example of former Soviet republics asserting their independence, attempting to address corruption, build democratic institutions, and orient to Europe.
Putin’s justifications for war
The Kremlin claims that NATO expansion and ‘aggression’ made war unavoidable. Western countries certainly mishandled aspects of the relationship with post-Soviet Russia and failed to respond to Russian aggression in Chechnya, Georgia and elsewhere, and in Ukrainian Crimea and Donbas in 2014. However, given their histories of Russian domination, the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States had good reasons to seek guarantees for their hard-won independence and democratic institutions. They turned to NATO for protection, which, as sovereign nations, they had every right to do.
Putin accuses Ukraine of Nazism and its government of being Nazis. Yet it is Putin’s government that has close links with the European extreme right and supports the fascist MAGA movement led by Donald Trump.
Putin’s accusation that former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) have committed ‘genocide’ is another lie. These countries have struggled to deal with insurgent pro-Russian separatists fostered politically and backed militarily by Russia. Putin continues to issue a stream of veiled threats about the possible use of nuclear weapons. His claim of ‘dirty bombs’ in Ukraine has no more factual basis than did
Bush/Blair claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 1993, Ukraine transferred its nuclear arsenal to Russia and dismantled its nuclear infrastructure in return for security guarantees to which Russia was a signatory.
Russian propaganda is a raft of falsehoods and calculated disinformation designed to create anxiety, undermine support for Ukraine, weaken resistance to the invasion and sow confusion in the Global South. Beneath all Putin’s spurious justifications is an imperialist agenda to re-establish not the Soviet Union but the historic Russian Tsarist empire. According to Putin, Ukraine is not a real country but part of the ‘Russian world’.
Who stands against Putin’s war on Ukraine and the West?
It is easy to understand why the extreme right internationally are cheerleaders for Putin’s Russia, but why are there individuals and organisations from the Left lending credibility in various ways to Putin’s justifications for his campaign of war and destruction in Ukraine?
Some directly support Russian aggression for historical ideological reasons. Some deny Ukrainian agency, suggesting that Ukraine is merely a ‘proxy’ for the US and that both sides are morally equivalent. Others echo Russian propaganda, opposing the invasion but excusing it as a defensive response to NATO expansion. Yet others denounce the carnage being meted out to the Ukrainian people while arguing that arms shipments, and other Western support for Ukraine via NATO, should cease, which would deprive
the victims of Russian aggression of the means to defend themselves.
By giving credence to Russia’s spurious justifications for the invasion of Ukraine these ‘anti-imperialists’ have effectively become unwitting assets for Putin and Russian neo-fascism.
A disturbing ‘peace’ initiative from Australia
In Australia, some sections of the peace movement have become conduits for Russian propaganda. Others, however well-intentioned, have sown confusion and thus allowed themselves to become accessories to aggression.
A particularly disturbing such ‘peace’ initiative has been issued by an Australian Professor Joseph Camilleri, together with Professors Richard Falk (US) and Chandra Muzaffar (Malaysia). Their ‘Call’ To all who care about Humanity’s and the Planet’s Future is directed at an international audience. They call for an immediate ceasefire, an ‘end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine’, a ‘phased withdrawal of
Russian military forces’, a neutral Ukraine, and some kind of resolution of the status of Crimea and the Donbas down the track, which Russia would continue to occupy in the meantime. The ‘Call’ expresses no solidarity with Ukrainian resistance, depicts Ukrainians as manipulated by the United States, and does not defend Ukraine’s right to decide its own economic and social future or join the European Union.
The effect of this scenario would be to consolidate Putin’s illegal gains, allow him to rebuild his crumbling military forces, repair the Russian economy, and prepare for an inevitable resumption of the war in the future. This is well understood by the former Soviet vassal states who are vehemently opposing any such ‘settlement’.
For the authors of the ‘Call’, the problem is not the trashing of the UN Charter, the proliferation of anti-democratic extremism, and the rise of 21st Century fascism, but a world in which the US wields too much geo-political power and influence. Many, particularly in the Global South, may well agree with this critique of US hegemony, but sacrificing the Ukrainian people and nation to achieve this geo-political outcome is surely a price too great to pay.
In Germany, Putin is actively facilitating a ‘ceasefire’ campaign, bringing together left- wing and far-right leaders and organisations. The ceasefire demanded by the ‘Call’ To all who care about Humanity’s and the Planet’s Future echoes what Putin wants and needs in Ukraine. It is nothing short of appeasement of blatant aggression and an implicit acquiescence to extremism. It reads like a 21st Century version of Neville Chamberlain’s vain 1938 attempt to secure ‘peace in our time’ from Adolph Hitler.
A just and sustainable peace will not be secured by succumbing to Putin’s aggression and the demands of extremists.
Oppose right-wing authoritarianism and neo-fascism
Everything possible should be done to enable the Ukrainians to recapture their illegally occupied territories and secure their 1991 borders and national sovereignty. The defeat of Putin’s aggression is a precondition for a lasting settlement in Eastern Europe and for any possible social renewal and progressive future in Russia itself.
An international problem needs an international response. Instead of ignoring the fascist and reactionary nature of the Putin regime and assisting the Russian war effort, wittingly or unwittingly, what is needed is a broad international democratic movement against authoritarian extremism and neo-fascism, and in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
This document is a product of the Ukraine Solidarity Hub project which seeks to combat misinformation and black propaganda directed against Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression. For more information contact:
David Mackenzie djmack309727@gmail.com
Ken Mansell kenmansell@hotmail.com
C21st Left 
I can agree with much of this but this part is woefully misguided: “the fascist MAGA movement led by Donald Trump”. Any real analysis of the world situation has to come up with a plausible explanation of Trump’s success of which his anti-war position is a significant part. The fascist label on Trump is part of the liberal fake news which only those with blinkers on can’t see through.
LikeLike
An international democratic movement against authoritarianism and neo-fascism is an excellent idea, probably long overdue. What’s the so-called Left been thinking, supporting Putin’s invasion? His regime’s got nothing to recommend it and everything to criticise.
Trump’s idea for ending the war is to cut American support for Ukraine and give Putin what he wants. Obviously, that’s what friends are for
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill’s brief comment does not elaborate or even briefly say what in the Call he agrees with. The main point he takes exception to is the characterisation of the contemporary MAGA and America First movement led by Donald Trump as a 21st Century neo-fascist movement. The isolationism (anti-war position??) has an historical precedent in the America First movement and Father Coghlin’s radio pro-fascist and antisemitic broadcasts to a mass audience in the lead up to WWII. Corporate media (‘liberal fake news’ is terminology used by Trump to condition supporters to not pay attention to any alternative commentary or information) mainly covered the election campaign as another election campaign calling Trump a ‘clown’, an ‘idiot’ or ‘weird’ and generally favoured the Democrats and Harris. Commentary in corporate media platforms about fascism only came from Medhi Hasan, who now leads Zeteo, and occasional serious inputs from academics such as Stanley and Snyder, except that is in the last week or two when the Democrats started calling Trump a fascist, albeit superficially. I agree that deep understanding the election of Trump and MAGA as part of a larger geo-political situation has yet to be fully accomplished. However, without reading too much into a brief comment, I have to say I am puzzled by Bill’s objection to characterising the MAGA movement as an extreme right-wing movement, perhaps with an implicit suggestion that the MAGA movement is somehow potentially a progressive and therefore supportable movement?
LikeLike
hi David,
As I said I agreed with most of your article but think you should edit out the Trump is fascist part. I haven’t studied the Ukraine situation in depth although I am daily informed about it by someone who has 🙂
It detracts from your analysis to equate a real fascist (Putin) with someone who is labelled a fascist by the lying MSM. The term fascist means rule by terror IMO. You sort of do retract it a bit in your reply, replacing it with “extreme right-wing” . These terms “left” and “right” have lost real meaning IMO. I did read recently what I thought was a thoughtful analysis of Trump’s ideology, so I’ll post that link below. Thoughtful just means thoughtful, ie. useful contribution to a deeper analysis. I hope you can drop the technique of labeling anyone who disagrees with a part of you analysis as closet Trump supporter. My main point is that you will win more support for your position on Ukraine by editing out a single major error.
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/19/11/2024/ideology-donald-j-trump
LikeLike
Bill there are many many definitions of Fascism. Defining Fascism as “The term fascist means rule by terror…” is probably one of the least helpful but obviously Fascist rule does incorporate rule by terror but if it only means this then Fascism has been with us for a long time (i.e. William the Conqueror was a fascist) plus it would encompass the Bolsheviks/CPSU because they ruled by terror plus it would mean that Hitler was a Fascist in 1933 but not 1932 because he wasn’t ruling in 1932.
LikeLike
Bill I just think you are dead wrong. You claim that Trump being a fascist is an invention “… someone who is labelled a fascist by the lying MSM.” But the lying mainstream media didn’t make this stuff up. General Millie Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that Trump was “fascist to the core” General Mattis Trump’s Defense Secretary said he agrees with Millie and Trumps’ longest serving Chief of Staff General Kelly said that he thinks Trump is a fascist.
Funny I also think you are wrong about Putin because I think fascists have a mass base and a street army. They are invariably outsiders intent on disrupting some sort of liberal status quo. Putin was an insider. Does not being a fascist but rather an authoritarian dictator make him any less dangerous well no it’s just a matter of categories and correctly fitting people into those categories.
I think if Mad Dog Mattis calls you a fascist well who am I to argue against Mad Dog.
LikeLike
My old comrade Robbo Bennetts tried to send in the following comment but it failed to get through. I’m looking into the problem. His comment is:
“To me, fascism is a modern political movement that employs direct extra-judicial force as one of its basic strategies to disrupt and overpower targeted groups, whether or not those groups actively oppose it.
“That force can exercised by state authorities (as in Nazi Germany after 1933), paramilitary organisations (Nazi Germany before and after 1933), or mobs.
“By that definition, Hitler was a fascist in practice through the twenties and onwards, whereas while MAGA has elements of, or similarities with fascism (e.g. some of their rhetoric, populism, mass rallies and targeting select minorities), it is not fascist in the sense that Hitler and Mussolini and indeed Putin are/were”.
LikeLike
I found this useful
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-return-of-the-f-word-and-the-laziness-of-labeling-russia-fascist/
LikeLike
‘Am I sure liberation from Assad is what I wanted? Absolutely. Do I have to be sure about how HTS rule over Syria will be to enjoy that?’
I think it’s quite obvious if people think about this that HTS will not rule over Syria!
Currently HTS have rightly taken a large measure of control over a very much larger section of the Syrian territory than they used to control less than a month ago. But that former control was thanks to Turkish bases in Idlib that provided protection from the ‘HIRISE’ collection of ratbags (Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Iraqi Shia militias, Syrians ‘loyal to Assad or collaborating, Egypt).
Turkey also protects other powerful non HTS areas in the North of Syria and is about to deal with the PKK-YPG SDF who collaborated with the Assad regime and the HIRISE when they ought not have! The ‘SDF’ will have to live up to their label! They will have to give up control of these Arab territories! They are not in any way or sense Kurdish territories and we all ought to know this!
Soon millions of Syrians will be on their way back to now liberated Syria from Turkey and all manner of other places and they will not in the main -I believe- be voting for HTS when the internationally observed election process takes place. But first they will want to go back to these currently SDF territories (hopefully in a peaceful manner but returmn to their territories they will). Enclaves will be ended and the international community will then demand that ALL of currently occupied Syria be restored to the new democratic Syrian state! Israel will have to get out of their captured territories as well.
People ought to assume that Turkey will ensure that such an election process will take place! Just as it does in Turkey and in Iraq! No such free and fair elections are available to others in the region, and this is what the Arab Spring movement was all about. It is still the current issue and becoming even more so! This election will naturally enough provoke a second and even brighter Arab Spring!
Think of it a bit like 1945 and Great Britain.
The people of GB were eternally grateful for the wartime leadership provided by Winston Churchill but nevertheless proceeded to throw him out of government! He was even replaced during the Potsdam conference by Atlee no less! The Syrian people will be grateful to HTS but they won’t get the numbers in the new Syria. They can’t stop the new Syria emerging even if they wanted to and so far there is no indication that they do.
HTS are only one of the many armed forces that worked for the overthrow of the tyranny! They are but one of the many players who will build the emerging democracy! Because that is what is emerging and it will look much like Turkey! My bet is that it will have a constitution similar to the great success that is the Iraqi democracy! The first order of business however is the end of the SDF enclave known as Rojava!
The PKK must end their war with Turkey! They have a credible peace partner in the now democratic Turkey. They may have been correct to take up the gun all those years ago but they would not be correct in continuing this now in the same way as the IRA were correct to deal with the British under the new circumstances.
A few people that used to post and comment at Strangetimes got the Syria issues all wrong and kept up the nonsense that they had spun for years; they would do well not to make a second blunder now!
LikeLike