What Tucker Carlson doesn't understand about Ukraine
To
Slava, or not to
Slava. That really is the question, isn't it?
From what I get from this new piece, it seems that 'what Tucker Carlson doesn't understand about Ukraine' is that...
it's complicated. Well, that much was clear when Prezident Vladimir Vladimirovich was courteous enough to try helping Mr. Carlson understand the situation by providing him with copies of 17th century "documents" that illustrate Russia's historical claim to Ukraine.
I think that what the author is trying to say is that the crux of the issue that Carlson (being a stand-in for conservative or even "dissident" Joe Schmoe) seemingly doesn't understand is that overly indulgent sympathies either toward Ukraine or Russia for entirely self-serving political reasons will likely be ill met either way. More mainstream "dissident" reasons for voicing support for the latter are often a means of trying to delegitimise the American establishment, whether it be by emphasising the need to address domestic instability before sending billions of dollars to support Ukraine or by revealing libtards as hypocrites for supporting ~Literal Nazis!~ (which is completely ineffective when the Libtard World Order holds enough power and sway to be able to not even have to care about being hypocritical).
The 'Ukrainian Nazis' / Russian "denazification"
casus belli is more so what I'm interested in discussing. The article explains it as such:
Quote:The most extreme Ukrainian nationalists at the turn of the 1990s sought to break the last and most deeply held of Soviet taboos; embracing the label of ‘neo-fascism’, as a gesture of contempt for a moribund society and a political project that had failed to the point of absurdity. The concepts of ‘neo-fascism’, and the forces of anti-fascism that stood against it, were in any case entirely manufactured by the communist governments of Eastern Europe as specious justification for political repression and an atmosphere of paranoia against any western influence. The embrace of symbolism designed to antagonise an old elite that was rapidly losing its remaining authority is analogous with the similar trend among youth subcultures in the west, most obviously the punks, and in terms of its political content should be taken just about as seriously.
For the Russians, it’s all far more simple. As far as they were concerned, the Nazis were primarily out to get them and to extinguish the Soviet Union as a manifestation of Russia’s geopolitical presence; the disloyalty of those Ukrainians who stood with the Germans for any reason became a longstanding source of resentment on the part of many Russians [...]
It would be too crude a characterisation to say that Vladimir Putin calls contemporary Ukrainian nationalists ‘Neo-Nazis’ because that’s what he thinks a Nazi is, but it is fair to say that it is a comparison most Russians, especially of his generation, so close is the association in their minds. Similarly, an entire generation of Ukrainains who came of age in the final years of the USSR, learned to become so contemptuous of the official Soviet characterisation of Ukrainian national sentiment as being adjacent to Nazi sympathies, that even Jewish Ukrainians are comfortable to shrug their shoulders at - and in some cases even join in with - the cult of Bandera, and the obliviation from Ukrainian national memory of the very real crimes of the UIA during the war.
I think that the Russian perspective is more worthy of attention, since the governments of America and basically the entirety of Western Europe stand in opposition to Russia. What does "denazification" mean? The below quote is from Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson and is how he describes it, at least publicly anyway.
Quote:You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive. And the President, the current President of today's Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation! Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what denazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it – that is what denazification is. That is what we mean.
Now, I largely agree with many others who have already characterised Russia's move against Ukraine as its definitive break with the "West". Still, I am not convinced that Russia has ever had a legitimate claim to support the idea that it civilisationally stands apart from the West, i.e., that it is an
entirely separate civilisation in its own right. Of course, there is the Duginist position which asserts, more or less, that the Russian understanding of geopolitics is fundamentally rooted in a perpetual congnisance of a sort of imperial 'manifest destiny' wherein Russia is in the process of completing its "
civilization building mission". "Nazism" and "denazification", through this lens, would seemingly carry implications that reach far beyond just eastern Ukraine. It can be debated all day whether Putin or the Russian levers of power actually subscribe to Duginist thought. I don't know nor am I going to pretend that I do. Honestly, I don't think that anyone other than them knows with certainty. Still, are people really content to dismiss the eschatological sentiment that sits at the core of what Dugin claims to be the "essence" of the "Russian people" as mere quackery?
Quote:There is a little misunderstanding in U.S. analysis of possible Russian answer to eventual direct participation of NATO in conflict – through Poland or elsewhere. U.S. most clever experts exclude preventive nuclear strike being sure that Russia uses this ultimate weapon only in the response to previous nuclear strike of the West. They are wrong in that. We are already in different stage of conflict. For Russia it means to be or not to be. For the US certainly it is highly important but not existential. So be not so sure. We've crossed the border.
I am not a dishonest person, so I've no issue admitting my wholly Western ignorance of Russia's deeply historical perception of itself. While I also despise modern Pharisaism, I make no efforts to obfuscate where my
inborn sympathies lie (for better or for worse). There is the Third Rome political theology, which I suppose that I disagree with
in principium, though I hardly understand it with all that much confidence.
If one takes "Third Rome" to be legitimate and entertains the idea that what survives of Western civilisation and the
Church upon which it was built (itself having been built upon what survived of the
First Rome) no longer retain any divine blessing or mandate, then it may also elucidate some of the possible unsaid motives of those who in the past, though interestingly less so as of recent, liked to invoke the phrase "Heil Putler". But I'm not really into conspiracy theories and that type of neurotic speculation is meaningless in any case.
Anyway, given that there was some discussion about the war in the shoutbox a few days ago, maybe others have thoughts on this recent J'accuse piece, or "denazification" / Duginism / "Third Rome" more generally.