Forever Wars Jonathan Cook Opinion Ukraine

A Lemming Leading the Lemmings: Slavoj Zizek and the Terminal Collapse of the Anti-War Left

Graphic by MintPress News

By Jonathan Cook / MintPress News

Have you noticed how every major foreign policy crisis since the U.S. and U.K.’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 has peeled off another layer of the left into joining the pro-NATO, pro-war camp?

It is now hard to remember that many millions marched in the U.S. and Europe against the attack on Iraq. It sometimes feels like there is no one left who is not cheerleading the next wave of profits for the West’s military-industrial complex (usually referred to as the “defense industry” by those very same profiteers).

Washington learned a hard lesson from the unpopularity of its 2003 attack on Iraq aimed at controlling more of the Middle East’s oil reserves. Ordinary people do not like seeing the public coffers ransacked or suffering years of austerity, simply to line the pockets of Blackwater, Halliburton, and Raytheon. And all the more so when such a war is sold to them on the basis of a huge deception.

So since then, the U.S. has been repackaging its neocolonialism via proxy wars that are a much easier sell. There have been a succession of them: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela and now Ukraine. Each time, a few more leftists are lured into the camp of the war hawks by the West’s selfless, humanitarian instincts – promoted, of course, through the barrel of a Western-supplied arsenal. That process has reached its nadir with Ukraine.


recently wrote about the paranoid ravings of celebrity “left-wing” journalist Paul Mason, who now sees the Kremlin’s hand behind any dissension from a full-throttle charge towards a nuclear face-off with Russia.

Behind the scenes, he has been sounding out Western intelligence agencies in a bid to covertly deplatform and demonetize any independent journalists who still dare to wonder whether arming Ukraine to the hilt or recruiting it into NATO – even though it shares a border that Russia views as existentially important – might not be an entirely wise use of taxpayers’ money.

It is not hard to imagine that Mason is representative of the wider thinking of establishment journalists, even those who claim to be on the left.

But I want to take on here a more serious proponent of this kind of ideology than the increasingly preposterous Mason. Because swelling kneejerk support for U.S. imperial wars – as long, of course, as Washington’s role is thinly disguised – is becoming ever more common among leftwing academics too.

The latest cheerleader for the military-industrial complex is Slavoj Zizek, the famed Slovenian philosopher and public intellectual whose work has gained him international prominence. His latest piece – published where else but The Guardian – is a morass of sloppy thinking, moral evasion and double speak. Which is why I think it is worth deconstructing. It encapsulates all the worst geostrategic misconceptions of Western intellectuals at the moment.

Zizek, who is supposedly an expert on ideology and propaganda, and has even written and starred in a couple of documentaries on the subject, seems now to be utterly blind to his own susceptibility to propaganda.


He starts, naturally enough, with a straw man: that those opposed to the West’s focus on arming Ukraine rather than using its considerable muscle to force Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table are in the wrong. Opposition to dragging out the war for as long as possible, however many Ukrainians and Russians die, with the aim of “weakening Russia”, as US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin wants; and opposition to leaving millions of people in poorer parts of the world to be plunged deeper into poverty or to starve is equated by Zizek to “pacifism.”

“Those who cling to pacifism in the face of the Russian attack on Ukraine remain caught in their own version of [John Lennon’s song] ‘Imagine’,” writes Zizek. But the only one dwelling in the world of the imaginary is Zizek and those who think like him.

The left’s mantra of “Stop the war!” can’t be reduced to kneejerk pacifism. It derives from a political and moral worldview. It opposes the militarism of competitive, resource-hungry nation-states. It opposes the war industries that not only destroy whole countries but risk global nuclear annihilation in advancing their interests. It opposes the profit motive for a war that has incentivised a global elite to continue investing in planet-wide rape and pillage rather than addressing a looming ecological catastrophe. All of that context is ignored in Zizek’s lengthy essay.

Instead, he prefers to take a detour into cod psychology, telling us that Russian president Vladimir Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. Putin will not be satisfied simply with regaining the parts of Ukraine that historically belonged to Russia and have always provided its navy with its only access to the Black Sea. No, the Russian president is hell-bent on global conquest. And Europe is next – or so Zizek argues.

Even if we naively take the rhetoric of embattled leaders at face value (remember those weapons of mass destruction Iraq’s Saddam Hussein supposedly had?), it is still a major stretch for Zizek to cite one speech by Putin as proof that the Russian leader wants his own version of the Third Reich.

Not least, we must address the glaring cognitive dissonance at the heart of the Western, NATO-inspired discourse on Ukraine, something Zizek refuses to do. How can Russia be so weak it has managed only to subdue small parts of Ukraine at great military cost, while it is at the same time a military superpower poised to take over the whole of Europe?

Zizek is horrified by Putin’s conceptual division of the world into those states that are sovereign and those that are colonized. Or as he quotes Putin observing: “Any country, any people, any ethnic group should ensure their sovereignty. Because there is no in-between, no intermediate state: either a country is sovereign, or it is a colony, no matter what the colonies are called.”


The famed philosopher reads this as proof that Russia wants as its colonies: “Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Finland, the Baltic states … and ultimately Europe itself”. But if he weren’t so blinded by NATO ideology, he might read Putin’s words in a quite different way. Isn’t Putin simply restating Washington realpolitik? The U.S., through NATO, is the real sovereign in Europe and is pushing its sovereignty ever closer to Russia’s borders.

Putin’s concern about Ukraine being colonized by the U.S. military-industrial complex is essentially the same as U.S. concerns in the 1960s about the Soviet Union filling Cuba with its nuclear missiles. Washington’s concern justified a confrontation that moved the world possibly the closest it has ever come to nuclear annihilation.

Both Russia and the U.S. are wedded to the idea of their own “spheres of influence”. It is just that the U.S. sphere now encircles the globe through many hundreds of overseas military bases. By contrast, the West cries to the heavens when Russia secures a single military base in Crimea.

We may not like the sentiments Putin is espousing, but they are not especially his. They are the reality of the framework of modern military power the West was intimately involved in creating. It was our centuries of colonialism – our greed and theft – that divided the world into the sovereign and the colonized. Putin is simply stating that Russia needs to act in ways that ensure it remains sovereign, rather than joining the colonized.

We may disagree with Putin’s perception of the threat posed by NATO, and the need to annex eastern Ukraine, but to pretend his speech means that he aims for world domination is nothing more than the regurgitation of a CIA talking point.

Zizek, of course, intersperses this silliness with more valid observations, like this one: “To insist on full sovereignty in the face of global warming is sheer madness since our very survival hinges on tight global cooperation.” Of course, it is madness. But why is this relevant to Putin and his supposed “imperial ambition”? Is there any major state on the planet – those in Europe, the United States, China, Brazil, Australia – that has avoided this madness, that is seeking genuine “tight global cooperation” to end the threat of climate breakdown.

No, our world is in the grip of terminal delusion, propelled ever closer to the precipice by capitalism’s requirement of endless economic growth on a finite planet. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing great ecological damage, but so are lots of other things – including NATO’s rationalization of ever-expanding military budgets.


But Zizek has the bit between his teeth. He now singles out Russia because it is maneuvering to exploit the consequences of global warming, such as new trade routes opened up by a thawing Arctic.

“Russia’s strategic plan is to profit from global warming: control the world’s main transport route, plus develop Siberia and control Ukraine,” he writes. “In this way, Russia will dominate so much food production that it will be able to blackmail the whole world.”

But what does he imagine? As we transform the world’s climate and its trade routes, as new parts of the world turn into deserts, as whole populations are forced to make migrations to different regions, does he think only Putin and Russia are jostling to avoid sinking below the rising sea waters. Does he presume the policy hawks in Washington, or their satraps in Europe, have missed all this and are simply putting their feet up? In reality, maneuvering on the international stage – what I have called elsewhere a brutal nation-state version of the children’s party game musical chairs – has been going on for decades.

Ukraine is the latest front in a long-running war for resource control on a dying planet. It is another battleground in the renewed great power game that the U.S. revived by expanding NATO across Eastern Europe in one pincer movement and then bolstered it with its wars and proxy wars across the Middle East. Where was the urge for “tight global cooperation” then? To perceive Ukraine as simply the victim of Putin’s “imperialism” requires turning a blind eye to everything that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union three decades ago.

Zizek gets to the heart of what should matter in his next, throw-away line:

Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia. True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance.”

Zizek briefly recognises the reality of Ukraine’s situation – that it cannot win, that Russia has a bigger, better-equipped army – but then deflects to the “greatness” of Ukraine’s defiance. Yes, it is glorious that Ukrainians are ready to die to defend their country’s sovereignty. But that is not the issue we in the West need to consider when Kyiv demands we arm its resistance.

The question of whether Ukrainians can win, or whether they will be slaughtered, is highly pertinent to deciding whether we in the West should help drag out the war, using Ukrainians as cannon fodder, to no purpose other than our being able to marvel as spectators at their heroism. Whether Ukrainians can win is also pertinent to the matter of how urgent it is to draw the war to a close so that millions don’t starve in Africa because of the loss of crops, the fall in exports and rocketing fuel prices. And arming a futile, if valiant, Ukrainian struggle against Russia to weaken Moscow must be judged in the context that we risk backing Russia into a geostrategic corner – as we have been doing for more than two decades – from which, we may surmise, Moscow could ultimately decide to extricate itself by resorting to nuclear weapons.


Having propelled himself into an intellectual cul de sac, Zizek switches tack. He suddenly changes the terms of the debate entirely. Having completely ignored the U.S. role in bringing us to this point, he now observes:

Not just Ukraine, Europe itself is becoming the place of the proxy war between [the] U.S. and Russia, which may well end up by a compromise between the two at Europe’s expense. There are only two ways for Europe to step out of this place: to play the game of neutrality – a short-cut to catastrophe – or to become an autonomous agent.”

So, we are in a U.S. proxy war – one played out under the bogus auspices of NATO and its “defensive” expansion – but the solution to this problem for Europe is to gain its “autonomy” by …

Well, from everything Zizek has previously asserted in the piece, it seems such autonomy must be expressed by silently agreeing to the U.S. pumping Ukraine full of weapons to fight Russia in a proxy war that is really about weakening Russia rather than saving Ukraine. Only a world-renowned philosopher could bring us to such an intellectually and morally barren place.

The biggest problem for Zizek, it seems, isn’t the U.S. proxy war or Russian “imperialism”, it is the left’s disillusionment with the military industrial complex: “Their true message to Ukraine is: OK, you are victims of a brutal aggression, but do not rely on our arms because in this way you play into the hands of the industrial-military complex,” he writes.

But the concern here is not that Ukraine is playing into the arms of the war industries. It is that Western populations are being played by their leaders – and intellectuals like Zizek – so that they can be delivered, once again, into the arms of the military-industrial complex. The West’s war industries have precisely no interest in negotiations, which is why they are not taking place. It is also the reason why events over three decades have led us to a Russian invasion of Ukraine that most of Washington’s policy makers warned would happen if the U.S. continued to encroach on Russia’s “sphere of influence”.

The left’s message is that we are being conned yet again and that it is long past the time to start a debate. Those debates should have taken place when the U.S. broke its promise not to expand “one inch” beyond Germany. Or when NATO flirted with offering Ukraine membership 14 years ago. Or when the U.S. meddled in the ousting of the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. Or when Kyiv integrated neo-Nazi groups into the Ukrainian army and engaged in a civil war against the Russian parts of its own populace. Or when the U.S. and NATO allowed Kyiv – on the best interpretation – to ignore its obligations under the Minsk agreements with Russia.

None of those debates happened. Which is why a debate in the West is still needed now, at this terribly late stage. Only then might there be a hope that genuine negotiations can take place – before Ukraine is obliterated.


Having exhausted all his hollow preliminary arguments, we get to Zizek’s main beef. With the world polarizing around a sole military superpower, the U.S., and a sole economic superpower, China, Europe and Russia may be forced into each other’s arms in a “Eurasian” block that would swamp European values. For Zizek, that would lead to “fascism”. He writes: “At that point, the European legacy will be lost, and Europe will be de facto divided between an American and a Russian sphere of influence. In short, Europe itself will become the place of a war that seems to have no end.”

Let us set aside whether Europe – all of it, parts of it? – is really a bulwark against fascism, as Zizek assumes. How exactly is Europe to find its power, its sovereignty, in this battle between superpowers? What vehicle is Zizek proposing to guarantee Europe’s autonomy, and how does it differ from the NATO one that is – even Zizek now seems to be conceding – actually just a vassal of the U.S., there to enforce Washington’s global-spanning “sphere of influence” against Russia and China.

Faced with this problem, Zizek quickly retreats into mindless sloganeering: “One cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine.” This Bushism – “You are either with us or with the terrorists” – really is as foolish as it sounds.

What does “unequivocal” mean here? Must we “unequivocally stand behind” all of Ukraine’s actions – even should, say, neo-Nazi elements of the Ukrainian military like the Azov Brigade carry out pogroms against the ethnic Russian communities living in Ukraine?

But even more seriously, what does it mean for Europeans to stand “unequivocally” behind Ukraine? Must we approve the supply of U.S. weapons, even though, as Zizek also concedes, Ukraine cannot win the war and is serving primarily as a proxy battleground?

Would “unequivocal support” not require us to pretend that Europe, rather than the U.S., is in charge of NATO policy? Would it not require too that we pretend NATO’s actions are defensive rather intimately tied to advancing the U.S. “sphere of influence” designed to weaken Russia?

And how can our participation in the U.S. ambition to weaken Russia not provoke greater fear in Russia for its future, greater militarism in Moscow, and ensure Europe becomes more of a battleground rather than less of one?

What does “unequivocal” support for Ukraine mean given that Zizek has agreed that the U.S. and Russia are fighting a proxy war, and that Europe is caught in the middle of it? Zizek’s answer is no answer at all. It is nothing more than evasion. It is the rationalization of unprincipled European inaction, of acting as a spectator while the U.S. continues to use Ukrainians as cannon fodder.


After thoroughly muddying the waters on Ukraine, Zizek briefly seeks safer territory as he winds down his argument. He points out, two decades on, that George W. Bush was similarly a war criminal in invading Iraq, and notes the irony that Julian Assange is being extradited to the U.S. because Wikileaks helped expose those war crimes. To even things up, he makes a counter-demand on “those who oppose Russian invasion” that they fight for Assange’s release – and in doing so implicitly accuses the anti-war movement of supporting Russia’s invasion.

He then plunges straight back into sloganeering in his concluding paragraph: “Ukraine fights for global freedom, inclusive of the freedom of Russians themselves. That’s why the heart of every true Russian patriot beats for Ukraine.” Maybe he should try telling that to the thousands of ethnic Russian families mourning their loved ones killed by the civil war that began raging in eastern Ukraine long before Putin launched his invasion and supposedly initiated his campaign for world domination. Those kinds of Ukrainians may beg to differ, as may Russians worried about the safety and future of their ethnic kin in Ukraine.

As with most things in life, there are no easy answers for Ukraine. But Zizek’s warmongering dressed up as European enlightenment and humanitarianism is a particularly wretched example of the current climate of intellectual and moral vacuity. What we need from public thinkers like Zizek is a clear-sighted roadmap for how we move back from the precipice we are rushing, lemming-like, towards. Instead he is urging us on. A lemming leading the lemmings.

Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook is a MintPress contributor. Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is


  1. Reading Zizek is like confronting one’s ongoing constipation. Between his perverseness and implausible dialectic, he is a chore. C’mon Zizek, out with it! Aay what the fuck you mean!

  2. Never liked Zizek, always saw him as a pompous anti-environmental ass. This isn’t at all surprising to me.

  3. Of course, the US has done nothing defensive since WWII (and our involvement in that was highly contrived), and I’m totally in your camp on the whole Russia, US, Ukraine, NATO, M-I-C situation—it’s sickening, and you’ve laid out a brilliant defense of your position. But does the egocentric Zizek really merit such a lengthy take-down? Unfortunately, I think it will just feed his delusions of grandeur, and his Lemmings will continue on over the precipice.

  4. All in all, a very convincing deconstruction shining the torch of reality into the dark abyss of Zizek’s intellectual vacuity. The problem with the likes of Zizek is that for too long they have basked in the excess of attention that has been paid to them.

  5. You aren’t paying attention. The voices of the political left have largely been drown out/blocked out by Democrats and liberals since the Clinton ’90s. The left were pointing out Joe Biden’s zeal for war since his campaign for president. The left have been explaining that today’s crisis is not a matter of “Russia vs. Ukraine,” and that we’re being lied into another war – this time, nuclear world war. It might be useful to pay attention.

    1. @D.H. Fabian
      The establishment has hijacked the term “left.” People call the Democratic Party the left, as ridiculous as that is.

  6. Zizek sadly joined the group of former Western intellectuals who, out of what could be described as mindless fascist fervor, engage in what Horkheimer called subjective reasoning and what I call intellectual prostitution and basic moral principles’ trumping despicable political expediency of failed and lapsed Marxist turned neocon like himself.

    It is ridiculous and almost painful to watch how supposedly Kissinger imperialism hating Zizek self emasculates, swallows imbecilic idea of alleged domino effect as a result of inevitable Ukrainian military defeat while Kissinger few weeks ago himself dropped such obvious idiotism in relation to today’s GLOBALIST, not ideological Russia, not interested in conquering the world but in global trade expansion, as long as their own fundamental security interests are respected.

    Having nuclear NATO member 230 miles from Moscow, as was Zelensky ambition expressed in public just in December 2021 is definitely a provocation and crossing the red line requiring response as US did in Cuba in 1961.

    Attacking Donbas on February 16, 2022 by 130,000 strong Nazi led Ukrainian army with publicly expressed desire of revenge against blockaded ethic Russian civilians crossed humanitarian line.

    But Zelensky threatening to break Budapest Protocol and acquire nuclear weapons was not fluke or extremism with no political support.

    Many right wing Ukrainian politicians called for development of nuclear weapons for years. The research and development of components of nuclear weapons was ongoing in Ukraine for years including with western funding and cooperation with US.

    The former PM Julia Timoshenko publicly called on the west to give Ukraine nukes so they would pulverize Moscow already in 2014 and 15.

    And she represents center left pro-EU politics in Ukraine ruled by oligarchs supported Nazis who want genocide of all Russian children as a FINAL SOLUTION to Russian problem.

    Is it not sensible and effective way to uphold Zizek’ European values permanently under supposed existential never ending threat of Russia?

    Is preservation of such aggressive and murderous Ukrainian state run ideology of Nazism that claimed millions of victims in the past is what Zizek calls heroic defense of European values?

    I think so, the answer is yes these are values of Russophobia and hatred to Russia fascist EU seems to desperately fights to uphold today.

    The colonial history of Slovenia, Zizek is a national of, explains such attachment to ..” European Values” of Colonial masters like Austro-Hungarian empire and who else but Third Reich culture of murder as Slovenian elites always stand behind their masters no matter how hideous they were.

    That historical context explains racist, ethnicist, sectarian and cultural fascism undertones of Zizek pontifications of supposed Ukrainian heroism that in most part includes exposure of abandoned by command , hungry defenseless territorial defense’s 40sh, 50sh or so soldiers to slaughter either by UkroNazis shooting them in the back or Russian artillery fire, torturing and killing Russian POWs and taking ethnic Russians civilians Ukrainian citizens hostage and hide behind them with blatant violation of international law and Geneva conventions.

    But simple humanitarianism based call for negotiated peace goes out of Zizek’s pseudo morality window as surrender of values defended to the last Ukrainian.

    Zizek’s ignorantly playing morality game of standing up and defending weaker party to the conflict fails on its face as Ukraine was not weak party.

    It had as of February 2022 second largest NATO trained and equipped and operationally supported by NATO army in Europe of 260,000 soldiers plus 200,000+ reservists (about 500,000 total) facing 190,000 of Russian army, Navy and Air Force and 40,000 purely equipped militia.

    Now after six waves of general mobilization it reached 700,000+ only to be slaughter by small numbers of highly disciplined, trained and equipped Russians.

    Zizek won’t ask how the hell it happened and who is responsible for such monumental Ukrainian military failure facing 5% of Russian military might and mass slaughter of Ukrainian men. Zizek is shy to ask where almost a decade of all the training, military hardware and money went.

    Scot Ritter concluded that Ukrainian military initially was better trained and equipped than any NATO standing army including US army.

    Is that the reason of Zizek’s waving hands and panic, suddenly waking up from torpid and realizing that there is no military force, short of nukes, that can stop Russians from conquering Europe if they wanted to.

    The foundation of any negotiated settlement is to accept reality on the ground and who was real bully, who was provocateur and who responded calmly and responsibly and proportionately to such provocation as international law requires to preserve their directly threatened interests and treaties as Article 51 of UN charter of collective security permits .

    But Zizek is not interested in learning the truth. Cheap Propaganda is what he was left with. Fortunately for Homs these days fascist propaganda peddling is exactly what’s necessary and sufficient to keep his pseudo philosophy tenure in EU.

  7. Great piece! But it seems an awful lot of folks who otherwise qualify as “lefties” are dropping the ball on this one …

  8. Slavoj Zizek is a narcissistic political celebrity whose odd mannerisms and manner of speech appear as avant garde and endear him to his constituency. Zizek is an excellent example of an “expert”: “Someone from out of town.”

  9. Well done, Mr. Cook. That was a thorough deconstruction, indeed. And in so doing, you show just how intellectually and morally defunct is this “Zizek”… whom, I confess, I had never encountered previously. He has certainly exposed all of his stripes here.

    It seems to be the new strategy, of those self-described ‘leftists” who have succumbed to the seductions of the Washington-centered Empire, to continue their pretense of progressive left values by covering their whoring for the Empire with such confessions, like, “the U.S. has in the past done some things wrong, but, but….”.

    That there is more than one of such despicable creatures in places of influence is sad and frustrating. But one by one, they are pulling off the sheeps’ wool suit to expose their real, vicious identities. And like all who hide their true selves in such disguises, that deceit alone is proof that they are not to be trusted ever again.

  10. Seems most are living in a alternative universe, including our most “estimed thinkers” Moralising about the evils of Russia’s intervention into a conflict of Ethnic cleansing for years by Facist groups in Historical Russian lands is hypocrisy. Then the support for the continual slaughter of Ukrainians as sacrificial lambs for the Military Industrial World & Western hegemony is unforgivable. There is blood on every body’s hands here.As you wisely point out there is a desperate need for a honest debate as to how we reached this point and then a humane solution can be found..The opinions of moralistic professors in their lvory towers are irrelevant.

  11. Zizek is often brilliant…here he reveals a crude boorish lack of comprehension—perhaps he is drifting from left wing hegelianism to right wing hegelianism…..Kierkegarrd so despised Hegel he wrote: “take paradox away from a thinker and you have a poor professor”

  12. Putin will reinstate the world’s bipolarity whether he wins or loses this war. Wouldn’t be surprised to see an anti- NATO set up soon after.
    Ucranians? Cannon fodder by their own choosing

  13. I was shocked at Zizek’s mental gymnastics argumentation. The article did a great job in peeling back and laying bare Zizek’s sophistry. I have followed Zizek over the years with great interest and respect for many of his views and analysis. However, here, he lost me entirely couldn’t disagree more with his reasoning and conclusions.

    1. Arendt described like her lover famous German philosopher Heidegger who seemingly “inexplicably” turned Nazi and joined NSDAP. Then he tried to explain his reversal (he previously considered Hitler and his party as simple thugs) using nonsensical contortionist logic.

      Horkheimer recognized such phenomenon as highly opportunistic subjective reasoning meaning concoction of phony reasoning process aimed at preconceived outcome.

      It turned out that Heidegger denounced his colleagues, university professors as Jews only to be rewarded with Presidency of the university. After war he was sentenced to short time in jail as a member of criminal organization like NSDAP and collaborator with Nazis in Holocaust.

      Zizek is another philosopher who joined path of Heidegger and collaborate with EU fascism.

  14. Trump’s embrace of American isolationism — a healthy instinct of the population — has given the “liberal” warmongers and neocons a way to endorse American supremacy and this war — intended to cause the collapse and division of Russia into piece-parts.

    Trump of course has no coherent geopolitics, he just smells opportunity, like any randy dog.

    Initially, the US’ simultaneous attacks on BOTH Russia and China look inept: Kissinger preferred wedge tactics. But the objective has changed: dividing Russia into a group of statelets or even de facto independent provinces that can be infiltrated and subjected to “color revolutions.”

    China is the REAL target.

    Russia is a bulwark against US intentions to penetrate central Asia and block China, halt its Belt and Road initiative before it substantially penetrates Europe and styme the International North-South Transport Corridor.

    Putin is obviously not ideal in this role: he’s a reactionary who’s reduced what should a vibrant, advancing nation to petro-state status and limitations.

    But he’s what the real anti-imperialist forces have to work with, so he and Russia need support. Defeating the Imperium is paramount.

    Putin has the support of the Russian populace — 83 percent at last measurement — because he and they are reacting to decades of western pressure and genuine threats to Russian security — culminating in the stated ambition to include Georgia and then Ukraine into NATO.

    Whatever Slavophile ideas Putin entertains, these facts are the critical ignition factor in the current war. Russian casualties are not undermining the war, they are creating a thirst for revenge.

    Despite western triumphalism, the real “world” is not buying its rationale.

    WhiteLandia grows increasingly shrill as the rest of the world issues a giant “MEH” over white people killing each other (again) in Europe.

    Millions of dead, mangled and displaced Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Libyans, Vietnamese and Syrians, occupied Palestinians (shall we call Donbass the “Russian Golan?) and other beneficiaries of US drone morality would laugh if they were able.

    The sanctions “world” (smirk) WhiteLandia plus the Japanese mascot.

    India, as it did during the last Cold War — will go its own way and profit where it sees opportunity, unmoved by hectoring British scolds and other yelping hyenas.

    The rest of the world is not partaking of the sanctions and increasingly annoyed by US manipulation of the reserve currency and financial throttle-points: evasions and workarounds are seriously underway.

    Scholz’ apparent reversal is potentially explosive. Are the Greens happy about reigniting the coal furnaces? As German industry stalls and people shudder as they breathe in coal dust — sympathy for the Comedian and his American backers is likely to decline.

    Is France going to be happy as Scholz makes Germany the most powerful military force in Europe? Lots of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists eager to join up, just like in Ukraine.

    The Germans can recall how French nuclear strategy called for Germany to be vaporized to stop the Warsaw Pact.

    Russia and China have so far been cautious and hesitant to forcibly undermine and threaten America’s far-flung interests in response to the economic wars and military provocations being visited on them.

    Both nations of course need to carefully not harm relations with nations that may be America-friendly but simultaneously are good customers.

    But captured MANPADs and other easy-to-use weapons scattered all over Ukraine could be put to good use by Hamas and Hizbollah. Ukraine is well-known for its illicit weapons bazaars, so the goodies may already be on their way, but Russia can ratchet up its response to Israeli airstrikes without a direct confrontation. And some of those loose weapons could make ther way here.

    1. @BabaYaga
      I have friends in Germany and it’s highly unlikely that Nazis would gain any traction there regardless of German military buildup. The Nazis in Germany are a very small minority, have laws against them, and are often attacked on the streets by groups like punk rockers (i.e., my friends). This is not 1930s Germany, it’s the biggest economy in Europe, so the desperation that drove people in Hitler’s arms 90 years ago simply no longer exists.

      1. I think you’re missing the point, it really isn’t about nazi hooligans on the streets* but about the problem of neonazis within the rank and file of Germany’s state security organisms and military. Sorry I’m on my phone and on the go so I can’t link stuff now but search for news related to exposed telegram groups and even a whole special service unit having to be dissolved because of extremist views.

        The leaked conversation sin the telegram groups showed widespread communication and organisational capabilities of people from all sorts of places, cops, military, secret service etc.

        There was proof of arms depots being broken into and weapons have fallen into neonazi groups, etc.

        Granted, not enough to be alarmist but it is a problem to take note of, and of course the political reaction to this here was lukewarm and in a very German style, underplayed with the same old mantra: “Nazis, here? Why, no, that cannot be, we already said we solved that issue and we’re never wrong in Germany.”

        *in any case their presence and attacks are on the rise, even in Berlin where I live, at least enough to keep the Antifa crowd entertained while they blindly show support for an ever more authoritarian state, from Covid to Ukraine, they can’t get enough of supporting their Capitalist masters. The balaclavas of old now exchanged for FFP2 masks. Truly, the level of indoctrination of the lefty crowd here in liberal globalist mumbo jumbo such as Zizek’s (also a clown in regards to zero Covid and thinking the crisis could benefit the left) is amazing. Coming from a Southern European radical left background it never ceases to surprise me after years in Germany. And the younger crowd is even worse.

  15. Slavoj Zizek was always more interested in fame and notoriety than philosophy. His philosophy, if you can call it that, is a collage of disjointed, unsynthesized ideas couched in a lot of fancy jargon. He’s a pop star, an actor, really who cares?

  16. Dear Robert Scheer: I have been trying to find a way to donate to Scheerpost, but I can’t find a mailing address to send a check to. I prefer to send checks to paying online. There’s too much fraud these days but I will donate by mail. There may be a lot of people my age who would like to donate by mail!!!

  17. Great article and comments! Surprised there is no alternative view and discussion since US policy is the opposite of both article and comments?

    I would add that Ukraine is not independent and sovereign. More so than any other European state (America’s “poodles”), Ukraine is the US’s bitch, a puppet state and has been since the CIA and US/Ukrainian NAZIs overthrew Yanukovych in 2005 (the Orange Revolution) and in 2014 in the Maidan Coup. As VP, Viceroy Biden headed Corruption in Ukraine and must still have dollar signs in his eyes. Zelensky who won >70% of the vote running on a “Peace with Russia” platform must know he is sending thousands of young Ukrainians to certain death for nothing. A proud and despicable US puppet who, like most of the dictators America supports, now likely has a huge vault of money if he can get away with it to the US or Israel.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: