Hi Mark,
Ok. Criticizing US imperialism doesn't make someone a Russia apologist, unless they do it in the context of a discussion about Russia. Then it's the same kind of whataboutism that we hear from Putin constantly.
I'm a fan of Varoufakis; didn't say anything about him.
As for the prospect article being from 2016, I'm not sure what that says to you. If anyone has changed their tune since then, it hardly erases what we know about them. And anyway, 2016 was after the annexation of Crimea, so Russia's expansionist ambitions were plenty well understood.
Tulsi Gabbard last week: "This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia's border." (Of course, if Putin takes Ukraine, there will be NATO forces right on Russia's border.)
Greenwald, Taibbi, and Blumenthal were obsessed with "Russiagate," constantly minimizing Trump's connections to Russia. They frequently respond to criticism of Russia with whataboutisms.
Jill Stein sat with Putin at dinner party in Moscow to celebrate RT's 10th anniversary. Putin's "Internet Research Agency" flooded social media with support for her during her candidacy. She defended Russian election interference with more Putin-style whataboutisms. ("We do it too.").
People in this camp can be seen frequently making their arguments on RT (the Russian state propaganda channel on cable TV).
As for Pilger, he consistently defends Russia, going so far as to claim that Sergei and Yulia Skripal weren't really poisoned by Putin but that it was a propaganda campaign of western journalists. He's on RT frequently.
I'm not saying the left as a whole is pro-Russia. But it seems to me that some in the left are so focused on US imperialism that they lose all sense of proportion, so that they begin to sympathize with anyone who is opposed to the US, or to mainstream liberalism (which explains why Greenwald regularly appears on Fox News now). I'm addressing it here in response to Al's sharing of the Code Pink campaign, which appears to me to be lined up with a lot of this.
Rory Litwin
------------------------------
Rory Litwin
President
Library Juice Academy
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 27, 2022 12:46 PM
From: Mark Hudson
Subject: New article from Phyllis Bennis
The
Prospect article is from 2016, and
The Spectator is a right-wing journal aligned with the UK's Conservative Party. But generally speaking the logic here seems to be that if you're not an apologist for US/UK/Western imperialism, then you must be an apologist for Russian imperialism.
There is also this interview with former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis of the Progressive International:
Europe Must Stand with Ukraine, Condemn Putin & Roll Back NATO to Restore Peace
- Mark
Original Message:
Sent: 2/27/2022 8:48:00 AM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: RE: New article from Phyllis Bennis
Here are a couple of links:
https://prospect.org/world/strange-sympathy-far-left-putin/
https://spectatorworld.com/newsletter/the-hard-left-and-hard-right-got-putin-dead-wrong/
Among the left, some American figures who are outspoken Russia apologists: Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein, Tulsi Gabbard, and Max Blumenthal. In the UK and Australia it's a tendency as well: Jeremy Corbyn and John Pilger are examples.
------------------------------
Rory Litwin
President
Library Juice Academy
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 26, 2022 10:03 AM
From: Jeremy Brett
Subject: New article from Phyllis Bennis
"The American far left's defense of Putin"? I would appreciate citations for this claim, since all I see is solid, bootlicking support for Putin from the American right wing.
Thanks,
Jeremy Brett
------------------------------
Jeremy Brett
Processing Archivist and Curator, Science Fiction and Fantasy Research Collectio
Texas A & M University Cushing Memorial Library
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 26, 2022 07:37 AM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: New article from Phyllis Bennis
Al,
The article claims that Russia's invasion is about NATO, and that seems to be what you think as well. That is what Putin claims, among other things. Putin claims a lot of things. For instance, that Zelensky and his government are Nazis who have been committing genocide against ethnic Russians, which is a bold statement to say the least, coming from a right wing dictator who murders opposition figures and journalists. But the invasion is not about denazification, and it's not about NATO. It's about territorial expansion to Soviet and imperial borders. That has always been Putin's goal. Ukraine's turn to the west, which we should be happy about, has wounded Putin's ego, and that is what has fueled his war. The American far left's defense of Putin, the laying of blame on the west, the repetitions of Putin's arguments verbatim in appearances on RT, are a very bad look. Isn't it a little late for diplomacy? Didn't western powers attempt diplomacy in earnest before Putin invaded another country without provocation? The stuff you shared from Code Pink earlier was opposing the west's war footing, as though we were just dying for an excuse to make war on Russia. Tell me, has that happened? Have we sent troops? No. But according to them, the west is still the problem. A very bad look.
Rory Litwin
------------------------------
Rory Litwin
President
Library Juice Academy
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 25, 2022 11:44 AM
From: Al Kagan
Subject: New article from Phyllis Bennis
Respond to Putin's Illegal Invasion of Ukraine With Diplomacy, Not War