While many on the left continue to explain Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in terms of reflexive anti-Americanism and the victimisation of Russia, there’s another, perhaps more damaging, anti-Western narrative being pushed both by right-wing commentators and mainstream commentators looking for a point of difference to distinguish themselves. Let’s call it the “flabby Western liberals” narrative.
Take some analysis of recent days: the unfortunate Alexander Downer, who recently declared he’d found four (count ’em) reasons Vladimir Putin wouldn’t invade Ukraine, argued on the weekend that “Putin has exposed the weakness of America, and the West more generally”.
“While Western countries have been convulsing themselves in debates about transgender pronouns and salami-slicing their societies into South African-style racial groups, autocratic governments have increasingly judged that the West is a paper tiger.”
The West was too busy “cancelling JK Rowling in response to the cries of a few fanatics” to defend itself, says Downer.
In The Guardian, UK journalist Jonathan Freedland — in a rare case of The Guardian complaining the West has not been interventionist enough — blamed the West for giving Putin the “green light” to invade through its failure to respond forcefully enough to previous outrages.
From the ABC’s Stan Grant — still all at sea in the history of Western liberalism — we heard that the West doesn’t understand how Putin is all about identity while we in the West have been obsessed with “pluralism and multiculturalism” and “diversity”, riven by “a demographic, economic and cultural fault line that runs through the liberal pluralist West … across religious freedom, LGTB rights, race, gender and class”. Grant followed up by lamenting the US and the West were in decline and “mired in culture wars”.
Bizarrely, Nine newspapers today saw fit to publish a piece of appeasement propaganda from a right-wing commentator that somehow linked the invasion to low birth rates in the “post-everything West, where children are too often seen as a present cost, not a blessing for the future”.
Then of course there’s Donald Trump, cheering on his friend Putin and declaring him “smart”, and Rupert Murdoch’s most senior Fox News propagandist, Tucker Carlson (despite an attempt to change tack at the end of last week), persisting with his long-term support for Putin.
What all of these “analyses” by quite different observers have in common is a shifting of the blame for Russia’s actions onto the West, because of an innate failing of our own. We’re too obsessed with LGBTIQA+ and “diversity” issues, too busy cancelling JK Rowling, too busy growing wealthier off globalisation, too busy supporting our indulgent Western lifestyle to stand up to thuggery.
As well as damning the West, these narratives elevate Putin, who is routinely portrayed as a strategic genius, playing three-dimensional chess while the West scrambles to understand him; a man in tune with the atavistic impulses of his people; a man with no time for such petty Western obsessions as LGBTIQA+ rights; a strong man who knows what he wants and takes it, letting no one get in his way.
For many on the right, Putin is a hero defending conservative values like Christianity, country and family against Western liberalism. Some on the right, like Liberal MP Dave Sharma, have even said we should ally with Putin to challenge China.
Except, Putin’s Russia is not some homeland of autocratic achievement, but a complete basket case. You think Western countries have a problem with children? Russia’s population is falling. Life expectancy there is at developing-country levels, partly because of excessive alcohol consumption. Its infant mortality rate is far above Baltic and European levels. Despite its falling population, in real and adjusted terms, Russia’s GDP per capita is not merely a fraction of Western levels, but is well below its Baltic neighbours and many Eastern European countries, even given its extraordinary energy resources. Russia is 136th on Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index, just ahead of Myanmar. Putin has to murder and jail critics, political rivals and journalists to preserve his power.
Poor, old, shrinking and rotten, this is the country that many on the right venerate as a testimony to the benefits of crushing liberalism.
Rather than softening and weakening the West, liberalism, pluralism, multiculturalism, diversity and respect for basic human rights are key reasons why Western countries are wealthier, fairer, more stable and better places to live. There’s a reason millions of the world’s poorest people, and those displaced by conflict, drought and persecution, seek refuge in Western countries, rather than wanting to live in autocracies like Russia or China.
We have our own often profound problems with corruption, inequality, discrimination and oppression. The US, in particular, is badly torn by polarisation and political extremism. We even invade countries unprovoked. There are plenty of items on the encyclopedic list of Western sins. But none of those who hold Putin’s Russia up as a better way seem to be clamouring to live there.
I remember in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami that devastated Asia that there were preachers in the US interpreting it in all sorts of self-serving ways. For example, that all those dead were a punishment for the US’s lax abortion laws.
I was thinking about those bloviating bible bashers a lot over the last few days as I read hot take after hot take of people quick to conteztualise the Russian invasion in terms of their personal bugbears about the state of world or even domestic affairs. (worst one was that somehow Joe Biden manufactured this to deflect from his domestic woes.) I get that chaos is a ladder, but the end result is a lot of noise with effectively no insight into the nature of the conflict.
If we want to understand why Russia invaded, we should be looking to experts on Russian politics. We’re not going to find it in some talking head ranting about how the West tried to cancel JK Rowling or going on about how NATO painted Putin into a corner, or the problem of white supremacy in Western political narratives. Chaos is a ladder and all that, but how do any of those people think they’re offering genuine insight into the topic they are confidently opining on?
I read a story recently, possibly in the Guardian, that analysed the origins of highly viewed Facebook pages in the USA. For the pages that were most viewed by conservative Christians, 19 out of the top 20, were fake accounts that originated in Eastern Europe: mainly Russia, but also Moldova. So, I can’t help thinking, that they might be getting fed the odd pro-Putin view, along with their usual hot button issues.
As an aside, that is one thing that truly baffles me about an actual military incursion. Russia has done so well in the last decade undermining democratic norms and countries through cyber warfare and misinformation campaigns that it seems prima facie a gross tactical mistake to do something that is so overtly hostile and bloodthirsty.
Putin wants and has got Chernobyl. An absolute gold mine for dirty bombs !
Same Kel. All I can think is he felt secure in having laid the misinformation ground so terrifyingly effectively – been at in Ukraine for years as well – that he judged the time as right – that or frustration/impatience exploded his sanity.
Looking for an expert on Russian politics and Putin personally? This bloke is pretty sharp.
westminster-institute.org/events/what-makes-putin-tick/
Thanks DF, great insights. To share two of Putin’s narratives:
– that the “Russian people” are “divided” and must be reunited. Russian people include Ukraine and Belarus, who can speak Russian and follow the Russian Orthodox religion. “One language, one religion, one prince”.
– that the correct border for the Russian people is a “historic Russia” with borders as at around 1800, including almost all of Ukraine and the Baltic states
Well summarised Bernard. “Would you live there?” is always the insurmountable hurdle for ideological warrior-pundits.
Here’s a take on responding to Putin that mainstream media won’t publish [yes, I’ve tried]:
It may help to think of Putin as a domestically violent husband. If he can’t have what he wants, he doesn’t care what happens to him or those he ‘loves’. Therefore I predict only two ways out of this: a Kremlin coup or assassination, or nuclear war initiated by Putin. The west should engineer the safer of these options while preparing for the other. He will not bear the humiliation of negotiating or backing down.
It is very worrying that you might be right. However I suspect that the Russian elite is not into loosing its money and access to places to spend it, let alone suicide.
Yes, I’m starting to think that Putin may have kicked a massive own goal. In that, many powerful Russians might be starting to resent losing massive amounts of money, being treated as international pariahs and getting bogged down in an ugly war. So, if at all possible, the solution would be to remove the instigator of that war.
OP – your post mirrors my thought in Comments under the Traub article in Crikey today. What price will Putin be prepared to pay?
Agree. Malignant narcissists are Dangerous. Our best hope as I see it is ‘a few good men’ work from within to temper Putin as they did to temper Trump – and if the pics of Putin’s generals and cabinet reflect general rather than grab that shot attitudes I see hope of this, or of the oligarchs acting to remove him. Surprised no one would publish this – but then no one would publish “Trump: Defacto Dictator?” in the lead up to the 1st impeachment which had same basis – hand a malignant narcissist a license to violate the Constitution – which IS US democracy – and it is certain they will continue to violate it . . . and go on to brag about being able to do whatever he wants which I did not foresee him doing in public! Is there a legal problem with readers alleging leaders have psychological problems?
NB: Didn’t submit to Crikey as was not aware of Crikey at that time.
A lot of excellent points. These smug, patronising bastards are infuriating. And like so many old white men in suits they’ve been gettinging it wrong for decades, without consequence, and lucratively rewarded. Shout out to the occasional crumb maiden supporting them too.
Oops, too angry to proof read.
Although, I didn’t actually notice the “gettinging”, until you pointed out that there was a mistake.
Many on the left ‘continue to explain’, (do you mean ‘excuse’?) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Is that so BK. I don’t know what you’re reading or smoking, but the only faction I see supporting Putin in any meaningful way is the ultra right lead by Trump!
Somehow I doubt the preponderance of deeply confused commenters on this website are from the ultra right
Seen Guy Rundle’s article today? I used to think the “lunatic left” was a right-wing mirage, but have now realised there are plenty of left wing loons who have lost their grip on reality, including many commenters on Crikey.
There’s one or two right here in this comment section. Look for the whataboutism.
Obvious, and obviously reasonable take for mine. Though I assume in a few hours this thread will be filled with devil’s advocate anti-imperialist pro-Putin types displaying their endlessly contrarian false equivalence pedantry.
As was noted by a Tweeter yesterday: “You can think the West has made a lot of grievous errors in how it has handled the Russians over the last 30 years. You can also think that none of these can possibly justify innocent Ukrainians having their lives and homes and historic cities destroyed.”
…so maybe they’d be better off negotiating with Putin rather than getting mown down as cannon-fodder.