Yesterday as Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced $70 million in military aid to Kyiv, Russia embassy in Canberra posted a 2014 article by American political scientist John Mearsheimer titled “Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault”.
According to the embassy, it’s the US and EU that bear greatest responsibility for Vladimir Putin’s invasion, which it claims is simply an operation to demilitarise Ukraine.
The embassy is not alone in towing the Kremlin’s line; similar arguments have been picked up by a handful of Russian apologists across the political spectrum who are fighting a largely unsuccessful battle to shift the narrative.
Far right joins the fray
Moscow’s talking points, ignored as propaganda by most in Australia, have been most enthusiastically adopted by some in the disparate morass that is Australia’s anti-vaccine far right, with Telegram channels being flooded with pro-Russian messaging over the past week.
The United Australia Party (UAP) recently disendorsed its candidate for Macnamara, Jefferson Earl, over pro-Putin posts. When anti-vaccine protesters descended on Canberra last month, UAP leader Craig Kelly escorted prominent Sydney-based Russian far-right nationalist Simeon Boikov into Parliament House.
Boikov, who goes by his alter ego “The Aussie Cossack”, has for some years been a loud, lonely, pro-Putin voice in Australia, leading a wannabe paramilitary (read: Cosplay) unit, and has defended forms of Russian aggression over the years, including the annexation of Crimea and the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.
After the invasion, Boikov led a literal handful of supporters to demonstrate their support outside Sydney’s Russian consulate. But more of the Putin-boosting has gone online. This week Boikov did a 90-minute live stream on his YouTube channel, which has more than 150,000 subscribers, along with anti-vaccine influencer Maria Zee, where he blamed NATO’s militarisation for the invasion, and claimed Ukrainian officials were being controlled by the CIA. Zee questioned whether Putin was trying to take down the “new world order” or stop the “great reset”.
Another pro-Putin Facebook page, West United for Russia, which has sought to blame Ukraine and the West for the invasion, was set up by Sydney Bitcoin trader Sean Davis.
Useful idiots on the left
While the conspiracy-pilled right has been the most vocal in its support for the invasion, there’s been a noticeable strand of Putin apologia from the anti-imperialist left.
Renowned journalist and filmmaker John Pilger has sought to frame the invasion as the result of Ukrainian and NATO aggression. Before the invasion, he called Ukraine the “only neo-Nazi-infested country” in Europe, reflecting the narrative pushed by Putin (and, weirdly, his far-right supporters) that the invasion was justified as an act of “deNazification”.
Writing for Pearls and Irritations, former Australian ambassador to Poland Tony Kevin claimed Putin wanted better treatment for ethnic Russians in Ukraine, while “Washington and Kiev wanted confrontation and permanent East-West hostility”.
Meanwhile over in Green Left Weekly, the Socialist Alliance claimed the US and its allies had provoked the conflict by encircling Russia.
Embassy logs on to defend Putin
Unsurprisingly, the highest-profile support comes through Russia’s official channels, which have relentlessly stuck to Putin’s befuddling script. For weeks they furiously denied the military build-up on the border was the precursor to an invasion, before quickly pivoting.
In January, Russia’s ambassador to Australia Alexey Pavlovsky held a rare press conference, where he accused the Morrison government of “fanning hysteria”, and claimed the troops on the border were a “warning” to Ukraine, not a threat.
Two days before the invasion formally began, the Russian embassy’s Facebook page shared a long, rambling post from the Russian Foreign Ministry, attacking “fake news” about Putin’s “non-existent attack plans”, before detailing a list of stuff that happened in Latin America during the 19th century as further evidence of Western deceitfulness.
When Australia announced its first sanctions, following the US, UK and EU, the embassy attacked it as ignoring “ethnic cleansing” of Russian speakers in Donetsk and Luhansk, one of the pretexts used by Moscow to justify the invasion.
By Thursday, once the invasion had become an undeniable reality, the embassy reiterated Putin’s claim Russian troops were carrying out a military operation, supposedly justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter (which gives states the right to self-defence) to protect people from “humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiyv [sic] regime”.
The embassy claimed forces aren’t targeting Ukrainian cities with airstrikes. Kharkiv is facing rocket strikes, and Kyiv is bracing for a potential siege.
Subsequent posts have consistently blamed Kyiv for failing to secure peace, which the embassy claims Russia has tried to negotiate over the past eight years.
Foxtel’s decision to remove RT from streaming services was described as “censorship”. Violence against civilians is described as the work of Ukrainian nationalists, not Russian invaders. The Facebook comments haven’t been all that kind.
In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, it was quite obvious that there was no real justification for the invasion. Whatever flimsy pretext Dubya et al. offered, it was little more than a flimsy pretext for what would be a massive fustercluck for the country and the wider region. History may have made a bunch of politicians regret the decision in hindsight, and others stubbornly dig in, but from the start the invasion was seen as folly.
This invasion by Russia is as egregious. Whatever grievances Russia may have, whether there’s any grain of truth to them, there’s absolutely nothing going on that would justify the invasion and the losses of life associated with it. It’s as clear cut a moral issue as there can be in world politics. And any whataboutism or echoing of Russian talking points is nothing more than a distraction to the massive disaster we are witnessing!
In about 1991 the US promised Russia it would not expand NATO eastwards. Then admitted a host of old Soviet bloc states. Putin is a thug and Russia would be better without him but you cannot honestly say the West has not poked the bear here.
I wonder who told you that the US promised Russia it wouldn’t expand NATO? Was it Putin?
Putin is too weak to even touch a NATO country. I bet every country in Europe now wants to join NATO willingly and with enthusiasm
If NATO backed off and started working for international peace instead of promoting insecurity and arms sales, just maybe Putin too might back off and save an awful lot of lives.
The pandemic and climate change should have taught every one of the western European nations that our focus needs to be on urgent cooperation more than needless expensive wars.
If NATO had admitted Russia and made them the same status as the US, UK etc, we would not be where we are.
I think you are absolutely right.
And according to this article Putin made an approach to join – informally, perhaps – in 2000:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
Yup, NATO should have signed a non-aggression pact with Putin & Xi)
Anyone spotted NATO in Ukraine yet after all those promises?
No, amazing isn’t it?
The simple answer is that if NATO did in any way physically militarily interfere, we then have WW3, do you fancy your chances of survival?
So why did NATO promise so much to Ukraine. Ukraine was left high and dry because they were conned. A war on Russia’s border suits Washington very well.
Because they didn’t want Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union to keep their nukes, genius, just like the US forced Taiwan to stop building its nukes in 1976 and China stopped Kim from….oh wait
genius. Nothing like an oldie way of insulting. You lost all credibility loser.
“A war on Russia’s border suits Washington very well”?
So why did Putin initiate the war if it suited Washington so much? Is he a fool? Is he a US stooge? Or could he just not help himself?
Come off it, the US and NATO have been spoiling for a fight with Russia since its revolution. I know NATO wasn’t around in the beginning but some of the same countries tried an invasion once, the US even had plans to nuke the Soviets but they calculated they needed 300 nukes to do the job, they never reached that number before the soviets gained their own nukes.
Reminds me of Sheila Fitzpatrick, not a rabid leftie and expert on Russian affairs, quoting Russian opinions: ‘ they hated us when we were communists, and no we’re not communists, they hate us anyway’.
You’ve just contradicted yourself by noting that any US enthusiasm for nuking the USSR faded away after it acquired its own nuclear weapons. There were only two other occasions when the US wanted to defeat Russia after its revolution and before it was reversed by dictatorship and the loss of power of the Russian Communist Party after it tried to restore its rule but was blocked by Yeltsin. The first was during the post-revolution civil war, which the Bolsheviks won. The second was under Reagan, when the US military tried but failed to achieve an effective capacity for an overwhelming first strike against the USSR. Close observers of history will note that Yeltsin restored capitalism in Russia as did a number of other former parts of the USSR. The idea of saying that the US is after Russia because of its revolution is therefore absurd. The idea that NATO has “encircled” Russia is also absurd, when you consider the immensely long borders Russia has with China, the border it has with North Korea and other south Asian countries.
No problem here in the future is there. US envoy sends ‘world united’ warning to Russia, China and Iran
Ambassador to Israel praises American allies for unity in response to Ukraine invasion, as warning to Beijing and Tehran
“On the Beach“?
Without Ava Gardner.
Ukraine is not in NATO nor has it been promised anything related to direct boots on the ground by NATO (UK’s Truss does not help); reiterated by a neighbouring NATO partner bordering Ukraine i.e. Hungary.
Like other smaller nation states and border lands, why do they feel compelled to be in or join NATO?
It was promised to be a NATO member by some in the EU, so was Georgia. But one cannot become a member if there are border disputes, maybe that was Putin’s plan, have a few breakaway republics to stop it happening. Of course I’m only guessing because none of us know the inner workings of Putin’s mind.
If one has to resort to guesswork or un/dis/misinformed opinions on actual issues of the day, why bother? Now everyone has to express their ‘freedom of speech’ over ‘experts’ and ‘elites’ to promote then reinforce ‘gut instinct’, feelings and beliefs; surely some religious or spiritual worship or a hobby would be better?
Prof. Tim Snyder (Vienna), presented the issue in a different light on US Democracy Now, basically countering and rebutting old ideological views from cold war times of another counterpart of the left, who’d indulged in a bit of ‘whataboutery’ and noise, but little substance to place NATO in negative light, and deflecting from Putin, or the classic conservative tactic, allowing Putin to play the ‘victim card’.
See or read transcript here https://www.democracynow.org/2022/3/1/nato_expansion_ukraine_russia_crisis
The first sensible comment from you in a while.
Probably ‘stopped clock’ syndrome.
A recent poll in Finland (a country that Russia is eyeing as part of its historical borders) has suddenly seen majority support for that country joining NATO. Wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine survives this that they’ll try to join too.
After Afghanistan its literally embarrassing to be associated with NATO.
It is? How so?
The entire power of NATO defeated by 60.000 sandal wearing 12th century peasants after 20 years isn’t a good look even if one is blind.
So why the sudden support among countries in and around Eastern Europe? A support that has historically not been there. Finland has never had a majority wanting NATO support until in the last week.
I bet the majority of Aussies didn’t want to get involved in Iraq either. The human animal is complex. Nothing like keeping the masses in fear, that’s how religions grew.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L.Mencken, 1918
Whataboutery.
That’s “democracy” for ya mate!
NATO’s deliberate, provocative push into eastern Europe (hardly ‘north Atlantic’), feeding Putin’s paranoia and indignation, is partly responsible for the catastrophe unfolding. Was it necessary?
I’m not sure how anyone can assign blame to NATO in this situation. Look at the actions of Russia. It wasn’t NATO that prompted it in Georgia in 2008, nor was it in Ukraine in 2014, nor the subsequent funding of pro-Russian militias in Ukraine in the years since. Meanwhile what has NATO done in that time that’s so provocative? Exist?
I’m not here to debate whether NATO is a good force in Europe. Nations who sign up to NATO need to work it out for themselves. But I am questioning why anyone is persisting in seeing NATO as partially responsible for Russia’s actions. The rhetoric coming out of Russia to Russians is that Ukraine is a threat to Russians living in that area. It’s that Ukraine is a part of Russia and needs to be brought back in. That Ukraine is embracing Western values and moving away from its sphere of influence. Joining NATO wasn’t even on the cards for Ukraine.
You’d have to ask the individual nations in question whether they think NATO is necessary. They are sovereign nations, after all, and have every right to make their own defence pacts. Saying that nations shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves because a potential aggressor won’t take too kindly to a nation trying to defend itself is absurd.
Georgia and Chechnya are not exactly in eastern Europe (ie. ‘north Atlantic’!), nor is Kazakhstan, where Russian paratroops recently helped to put down an uprising. Russia didn’t move on Ukraine to annex Crimea and covet the Donbas area until after the USA indisputably meddled – in fact, sponsored and probably helped to engineer – the 2014 coup.
It’s all very well to suggest the various ex-Soviet countries might have begged to be NATO members to ‘defend themselves’; that doesn’t mean that NATO wasn’t pushing, and it’s easy to imagine why it and especially the USA would want to ring Russia with the kind of weaponry the USA – which has its own agenda – and other countries can sell. Nations may have purely defensive aims; NATO/USA’s might be purely offensive. The cold war is back – it likely never left and neither did MAD. Leaving aside the deluded, paranoid rhetoric coming from Putin, I don’t know how anyone can completely absolve NATO of some blame for this situation.
Agree, not even supported by basic timelines…… i.e. Putin decided to make NATO the bogeyman after 2012, which also reflects the long term view of European and US alt/far right, but does not explain Putin protagonists of the centre or left?
How dare independent nations have and maintain their sovereignty?
Anglosphere narrative……. The truth hurts the old ideologues of the ageing left and right who all sound like nativist &/or conservative libertarians now; thanks to Rupert, Howard and the IPA.
Can it be called ‘paranoia‘ if one is surrounded & hemmed in by vociferous, threatening enemies?
Not NATO actually I believe. Just the English speaking Triumvirate – US, UK and Australia
The Russians learnt that in 1979. The entire Soviet Union was humiliated over 10 years by the so-called peasants.
True the Soviet leaders were an inept lot.
NATO didn’t invade Afghanistan. The US and some of its allies did and shouldn’t have. The Soviet Union did and shouldn’t have.
Resolute Support Mission or Operation Resolute Support was a NATO-led multinational mission in Afghanistan. It began on 1 January 2015 as the successor to the International Security Assistance Force, which was completed on 28 December 2014.
Seems to me Putin has shot himself in the foot in several different ways. Including the disillusionment of Russian troops, reminds me of the US troops in the Vietnam conflict.
While his gaze is averted he’d need to keep an eye on other places, not western NATO, e.g. Kazakhstan where there was recent uprising, and Erdogan in Turkey.
I suppose that you want to join NATO as well. Good idea, better than the stupid ANZUS treaty.
I would beg to differ- he has a massive nuclear arsenal at hand. Until recent Russia was the USA’s only lifeline to the ISS.
During WW2, without the USSR holding out (despite catastrophic losses that were never inflicted on the West) and pushing the Nazi’s back Western Europe would probably be still under Nazi rule today.
There are declassified Minutes of discussions between the West and Russia about German reunification that confirm these promises were made. They were discovered by a Professor at a Boston University, published in the German Press and conveniently ignored by the West.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
These documents don’t show what you want. They detail discussions and sort of assurances in the discussions in 1990 with the Soviet Union, in the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. They did not and could not bind NATO and those newly independent states to some sort of forever more promise, nor did they. Politically they look to have mostly been about shoring up Gorbachev at home. If NATO had moved into Poland then the right wing coup that happened anyway would have been a certainty. So of course they were happy to say they wouldn’t be.
So around a year later the Soviet Union broke up and more new states appeared, including Russia.. You’ll have to Google again.
Bollocks. They bear out what Russia is claiming. That they received verbal assurances that NATO would not expand eastwards ever. Do you understand verbal vs written? Stupid of the former Soviet Union not to get it in writing but at least evidence that promises were made. As usual, the West welching on agreements.
A verbal agreement is as good as the paper it is signed on. Since when is a verbal assurance considered a binding agreement? Will the bank lend you money on the basis you say you will repay the loan? Of course not. To suggest Putin has gone to war over a broken verbal agreement does not make sense to me.
Do you understand Contract Law (at least in Common Law nations)? A Binding Legal Contract consists of Offer and Acceptance. The primary difference between verbal and written contracts is the T&C’s and proving same in the event of a dispute. That’s why I said it was stupid of the Soviet Union not to get it in writing as it can be difficult to prove down the track.
https://en.rua.gr/2022/02/18/der-spiegel-uncovers-archival-document-promising-nato-non-expansion/
Agree, tendency for people to rely on single sources to support a very big position with multiple themes to support; outside any credible academic rigour.
This is some pretty tenuous stuff. Not a formal treaty agreed to by national parliamentary bodies and their delegates, just an informal understanding at one remote piece of time.
It’s pretty cool that this was found in some forgotten archive, and would make a great film montage, but you can’t hang much on it. Certainly not a grand strategic theory.
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
It was reported in western media at the time – and several times later.
Putin had no issue with NATO till round 2012.
That is what the documented facts tell us:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
As they say in the classics, “It was in all the papers.“.
Not exactly a promise- but James Baket (under Bush snr) did put it on the table and confused things:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
This keeps being repeated in comments on this site and it is not true. Not least because in 1991 the US was dealing with USSR. There are no sources to support this claim that such a promise was made. The West has been disingenuous about NATO expansion and you can argue ill advised but the Russians were not naive regarding this either. New NATO states did not start assuming meaningful combat capability until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
It is true
https://en.rua.gr/2022/02/18/der-spiegel-uncovers-archival-document-promising-nato-non-expansion/
Your Boston professor adds nuance I would agree with. He is quoted in a Politifact article on this subject. “There is a legitimate point to say that the U.S. offered assurances to the Soviets that NATO would do something, but that is not the same thing as saying NATO offered an agreement,” Shifrinson continued. “NATO is not violating, and it never offered an agreement. None of that justifies Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he added.” The sites verdict is the claim of a promise not to expand is, mostly false. People can read it here and make up their own minds. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/
Nice try and I also read politifact on this when that actually came out and don’t buy it at all. Politifact is just Western Journo’s checking other Western Journo’s (hardly a high benchmark). An Agreement/Contract is legally “offer and acceptance”. If it was offered and accepted then it is binding.
To paraphrase Marx, G “These are the facts. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
He would not want to be in a club (NATO) that would have the likes of himself as a member, its verbal agreements not being worth the paper they aren’t printed on.
These documents were only released four weeks ago by German news Der Spiegel. West promised not to expand NATO – Der SpiegelNATO deceived Russia about expansion and a British document proves it, top German weekly discovers. What more do you want?
Something more than a reference to a tabloid take and that a report on it by another tabloid to boot. See my replies to lexusaussie.
Mate it’s an official document that came from the archives in London. Do the research.
The document was found in the UK National Archives by Joshua Shifrinson, a political science professor at Boston University in the US. It had been marked “Secret” but was declassified at some point. Another interesting point during that time, Thatcher told Gorby not to let the Soviet Union to fall, she didn’t want a unified Germany that would out produce the Brits.
As I already noted see A/Prof Shifrinson and other academics on this at https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/
or perhaps you want to join lexusaussie in quoting him when you think he supports your point and then ditching him when he doesn’t. Bit of the old doublethink. That Orwell was pretty unreliable too…
I didn’t think you would like a socialist like Orwell.
He’s more like a Western Apologist than a Socialist.
“Thatcher told Gorby not to let the Soviet Union to fall”? If true (and I’m not saying it’s not), do you not think Thatcher (and any other reasonable person as well) would have been especially keen for the then Soviet Union to not fracture into warring ethnic regions? Especially given the recent experience of Chernobyl and the fact of the rather large nuclear arsenal?
Don’t know, but the Soviet Union was a failed model run by questionable people.
She was very firm, iron-like, that Germany would not be united in her lifetime – unfortunately it was and she lived for 20 years more.
In 1975 she also said, after being made Leader of the Opposition, that Britain was not ready for a woman as PM.
Four years it still wasn’t but had one, for too long a time.
It’s lamentable how some like to lump those that are pointing out the hypocrisy of the West (that seems to be able to do the things with impunity : that they condemn the likes of China and Russia for doing) among those “Putin apologists and propagandists” when they are not peddling any such apology or propaganda. When they are simply “anti-war”.
Lecturing another country for what the lecturer has been guilty of doesn’t cut it, as it is too easily dismissed as opportunist hypocrisy – how many countries condemned the Coalition the Willing for doing what “we” did?
There can be no excuse for these international atrocities from any side – as there can be no forgetting …. lapsing to repetition.
Hear hear.
It’s lamentable how some like to lump those that are pointing out the hypocrisy of the West (that seems to be able to do the things with impunity : that they condemn the likes of China and Russia for doing) among those “Putin apologists and propagandists” when they are not peddling any such apology or propaganda. When they are simply “anti-war”.
Absolutely spot-on, Klewso. They remind me of Bush Jr: You’re either with us or against us. Meaning if you’re ‘against us’ you’re a Saddam supporter.
It’s that old two dimensional “black and Right” magic thinking.
Its only OK to invade a sovereign state with US approval.
Very true with multiple examples since 1945.
Neither is ok. What happened in the past is no excuse for what is happening now. Or are you suggesting that humans cannot learn and improve?
Russia’s particularly brutal invasion of a sovereign state, coupled with
has provided a much needed wake up call for all of us.
Ah but you excuse the actions of the US in the past then! Where is the outrage against the US? Where are the Sanctions against the US for its egregious misdeeds? The US has a history of regime change, Interference, invasion, illegal rendition and serious misinformation (why do you think Snowden and Assange are hated so much by them? ). Russia’s actions are not excusable yet we excuse the US simply because they are Western eh?
I don’t think anybody is excusing past US behaviours, are they? I mean, I totally agree that “The US has a history of regime change, Interference, invasion, illegal rendition and serious misinformation”. Bad. Yes. But how does the US doing bad things make what Putin is doing now forgivable?
You are making excuses for their behavior right now! So what Sanctions, UN Resolutions and military supplies were provided to the Sovereign Nations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Zero. Zip. Nada. Ditto when NATO attacked Serbia?
Putin is doing nothing more than “the West” has done so why is Russia being persecuted yet the US, UK and Australia were not? The West has no moral compass when any Non-Western nation is involved and refuses to hold itself accountable for its actions. They give themselves a pass everytime.
One rule for the West and another rule for all Non-Western countries.
“Past” behaviours?
One cannot dismiss the past without consequences for the future.
Simplistic ‘whataboutery’ that excludes other factors and ‘learning from others’ past mistakes’.
Quite true.
Putin considers it OK to invade Ukraine. So, he believes he has US approval to do it?
There are shared interests, Fox (even MSM) like Trump thought it was a good move (to make Biden/Dems look ‘weak’) while Koch Network think tanks are tepid in response or commentary, then again, they like many of their network donors have fossil fuels related investments in Russia…..
No surprise the Russian embassy supports its President. Duh! The UAP mind-set comes from a different planet to mine and life is too short to try to understand why a small minority supports it. More questionable is the ‘Useful idiots on the left’ section.
The section fails to make a distinction between (1) trying to understand pre-invasion Russian grievances and (2) support for the actual invasion. Yes, John Pilger fingers Washington for causing those grievances but Kishor fails to reference Pilger’s later (post-invasion) tweets that the invasion is ‘lawless and wrong’.
The Socialist Alliance also blames the US and its allies for provoking the conflict – though this statement was made before the invasion. The Green Left Weekly article quoting the Socialist Alliance actually shows it, Australian peace groups and politicians are opposed to military solutions.
I don’t agree with all Tony Kevin’s characterisations of the events but the two assertions cited here are not self-evidently false. Consigning him to the ‘Putin apologist’ and ‘useful idiot’ dustbin is the sort of thing done by propagandists who only want one side to be heard.
I rely on Crikey to provide access to (at least) half-decent commentary on current events. Sadly, I’d mark this piece as a fail. 🙁