Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Tamas]

Did Orban get demoted in Putin's eyes? 

Since he is from the EU, he must be showcased as the lapdog he is.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see how anyone can take Ukraine seriously given their puny tables:

[Sheilbh]

As a Canadian caught up in the whole trucker thing, I wonder to what extent our local alt right activists are connected to and/ or funded by (directly or indirectly) Russia. Because if the confrontation is about to escalate, stoking fires of internal conflict in your opponents is worthwhile... and I think the US fires are well stoked at the moment, but bringing Canada along could increase them a bit (e.g. Ted Cruz talking about Canadian patriots and otherwise undermining the US-Canadian relationship).

I'm dubious about that side of things. Though there are direct connections with some groups and there is a general milieu of the far-right that aligns with Russia because of what Russia presents to the world (masculinity, traditional values, protecting Christian civilisation etc), which is not particularly reflective of actual, existing Russia.

The thing I find most striking is the element of mirroring and impersonation. The Light That Failed, which is about the "failure"of liberal democratic models in CEE is really interesting - and I really recommend it. It talks a lot about the psychological stress of mimicry and mirroring - a copycat Westernisation (and a theme that's also really common in post-colonial analysis) in effect producing almost psychological stress at the failure of the copycat Westernisation to produce the results, turning inwards and lashing out. Their take is that the rise of nationalist forces and illiberal democracy is less to do with a turn to the far-right per se than a failure to achieve independence or dignity or recognition of your own self when your society is engaged in a process of mimicry. It's a really interesting read with a lot of striking insights.

But your comment made me think about it because I think it is tied to what Putin does constantly which is mirroring the West in his rhetoric. So the intervention in Syria is framed as no different than what the West did in Libya; Georgia, Crimea, the Donbass are just Kosovo for "Russian-speakers". It is geopolitics by trolling and I wonder if one of the ways it has succeeded is that in the same way as people in Russia often see elaborate, Byzantine conspiracies and "are they really 'civil society' groups or are they really funded by the CIA/George Soros/MI6?'" - I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry. It's undoubtedly true that the CIA etc do funnel money to some groups in Russia, that's always been a way that intelligence agencies have operated. Similarly there's no doubt some groups are getting some form of Russia backing or links (just like some left wing groups did back in the days of the USSR). But I wonder if there's a risk in suspecting that everywhere that we first of all end up as liberal John Birchers and secondly end up undermining our own politics by imitating the conspiracism of Russian politcs. While I'm aware this will undermine everything I've just said: I suspect that's something Putin probably wants

[Tamas]

I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry.

I think that is the case, I don't think Russia does more than advise and financially support "NGOs" (as in far-right organisations) which to be fair is the same as what liberal organisation do with pro-democracy NGOs. I am not making them equal, because one is objectively right for people's living standards and personal freedom while the Russian way is objectively towards a worse aim. I am just saying that when we see an elaborate Russian conspiracy between Farage and various thugs getting sweet money deals from Russia, we are probably doing the exact same thing the fascists do when they see elaborate schemes behind some Soros-supported NGO promoting freedom of press.

HOWEVER, years ago there was an interesting -almost accidental- reveal that a tiny whacko gun-collecting organisation in Hungary had such close contact with Russian agents (whichever of their spy organisation that works on actions abroad) that they even had training sessions together. This came to light because the leader of the organisation went berserk and shot two cops (one died) when they came to search his weapons-laden house. So with Russia its a bit harder to see where valid concern stops and paranoia begins.

EDIT: before you wonder no, nothing came of the Hungarian thing, official relations remained unaffected. Same thing with a Jobbik MEP having been revealed as an active Russian spy. He has been convicted (not sure if went to prison yet) but the Hungarian government keeps licking Putin's arse like if nothing happened.

[Sheilbh]

HOWEVER, years ago there was an interesting -almost accidental- reveal that a tiny whacko gun-collecting organisation in Hungary had such close contact with Russian agents (whichever of their spy organisation that works on actions abroad) that they even had training sessions together. This came to light because the leader of the organisation went berserk and shot two cops (one died) when they came to search his weapons-laden house. So with Russia its a bit harder to see where valid concern stops and paranoia begins.

I don't disagree - it is also exactly the stuff that did happen with fringe groups on the left during the cold war. There were absolutely bits of Soviet support to them. My suspicion - of that period - is that the paranoia was a bigger and more corrosive issue than the actual aid. I'm not sure if we're in a similar place right now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Tamas one difference is that the distinction between public and private, between the state and civil society is a lot more sharply drawn in the "West" than in places like Russia or China.  Western NGOs are completely autonomous, even in cases where they are able to access public funding sources.  For example, it is difficult to conceive how in the US or Britain there could be criminal gangs engaging in overseas hacking that receive direct state support and encouragement.

[DGuller]

HOWEVER, years ago there was an interesting -almost accidental- reveal that a tiny whacko gun-collecting organisation in Hungary had such close contact with Russian agents (whichever of their spy organisation that works on actions abroad) that they even had training sessions together. This came to light because the leader of the organisation went berserk and shot two cops (one died) when they came to search his weapons-laden house. So with Russia its a bit harder to see where valid concern stops and paranoia begins.

I don't disagree - it is also exactly the stuff that did happen with fringe groups on the left during the cold war. There were absolutely bits of Soviet support to them. My suspicion - of that period - is that the paranoia was a bigger and more corrosive issue than the actual aid. I'm not sure if we're in a similar place right now.

I think it's part of the same campaign.  One success is that the Russians successfully seed disinformation.  The other success is that Russia gets to live rent-free in the heads of people concerned about such disinformation (they may be living rent-free in my head). 

I think it's an inevitable side effect.  When one side commits perfidy, the other side doesn't just get their soldiers killed by the enemy committing a perfidy.  They also get soldiers killed by friendly fire from jumpy and suspicious sentries.

[Zoupa]

I don't see how anyone can take Ukraine seriously given their puny tables:

This photo alone is enough to make me sympathetic to Ukraine. Look at that Louis XIV style, much more raffiné.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry.

I think that is the case, I don't think Russia does more than advise and financially support "NGOs" (as in far-right organisations)

why focus only on the right wing? If Russia is funding groups that are inimical to Western values I'm pretty sure Russia will also be funneling mony to the extreme-left. Why bet on one horse if you can bet on two and thus maximalise the chaos created....

[Josquius]

I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry.

I think that is the case, I don't think Russia does more than advise and financially support "NGOs" (as in far-right organisations)

why focus only on the right wing? If Russia is funding groups that are inimical to Western values I'm pretty sure Russia will also be funneling mony to the extreme-left. Why bet on one horse if you can bet on two and thus maximalise the chaos created....

Oh. They do that for sure. It's often forgotten their goal isn't for the far right to win so much as to sow division.

However it is the right that they provide the most support to, seeing them as both the most desirable outcome if there must be one and easiest to manipulate. Its also the right that has proven by far the most dangerous this millennium.

[Jacob]

why focus only on the right wing? If Russia is funding groups that are inimical to Western values I'm pretty sure Russia will also be funneling mony to the extreme-left. Why bet on one horse if you can bet on two and thus maximalise the chaos created....

Fair point.

I think, right now and for a while, Putin has been getting more bang for his buck from the far right nationalist crowd. But absolutely, I'm sure they're feeding the extreme left where they can as well. Because yeah, the objective is to pile as much pressure on societal faults where he can.

There is - I think - more affinity between the tankie left and Putin (see Jeremy Corbyn's "no war in Ukraine" participation) than on the identity politics side. I don't know to what degree Putin's been able to feed the identity politics side of the left, and I think they're closer to where the societal fault lines are these days.

[Jacob]

I'm dubious about that side of things. Though there are direct connections with some groups and there is a general milieu of the far-right that aligns with Russia because of what Russia presents to the world (masculinity, traditional values, protecting Christian civilisation etc), which is not particularly reflective of actual, existing Russia.

The thing I find most striking is the element of mirroring and impersonation. The Light That Failed, which is about the "failure"of liberal democratic models in CEE is really interesting - and I really recommend it. It talks a lot about the psychological stress of mimicry and mirroring - a copycat Westernisation (and a theme that's also really common in post-colonial analysis) in effect producing almost psychological stress at the failure of the copycat Westernisation to produce the results, turning inwards and lashing out. Their take is that the rise of nationalist forces and illiberal democracy is less to do with a turn to the far-right per se than a failure to achieve independence or dignity or recognition of your own self when your society is engaged in a process of mimicry. It's a really interesting read with a lot of striking insights.

But your comment made me think about it because I think it is tied to what Putin does constantly which is mirroring the West in his rhetoric. So the intervention in Syria is framed as no different than what the West did in Libya; Georgia, Crimea, the Donbass are just Kosovo for "Russian-speakers". It is geopolitics by trolling and I wonder if one of the ways it has succeeded is that in the same way as people in Russia often see elaborate, Byzantine conspiracies and "are they really 'civil society' groups or are they really funded by the CIA/George Soros/MI6?'" - I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry. It's undoubtedly true that the CIA etc do funnel money to some groups in Russia, that's always been a way that intelligence agencies have operated. Similarly there's no doubt some groups are getting some form of Russia backing or links (just like some left wing groups did back in the days of the USSR). But I wonder if there's a risk in suspecting that everywhere that we first of all end up as liberal John Birchers and secondly end up undermining our own politics by imitating the conspiracism of Russian politcs. While I'm aware this will undermine everything I've just said: I suspect that's something Putin probably wants

Some good points. I don't have a clever response, but excellent food for thought.

[DGuller]

The Russians most certainly have their share of agent provocateurs online on the far left.  They definitely helped the Bernie movement, as they right believed that it would be helpful to split the Democrats.  Quite a few pro-Bernie memes have been proven to originate from Russia, IIRC.

[Jacob]

The Russians most certainly have their share of agent provocateurs online on the far left.  They definitely helped the Bernie movement, as they right believed that it would be helpful to split the Democrats.  Quite a few pro-Bernie memes have been proven to originate from Russia, IIRC.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I wonder if we're starting to mirror that and engage in our own mimicry.

I think that is the case, I don't think Russia does more than advise and financially support "NGOs" (as in far-right organisations)

why focus only on the right wing? If Russia is funding groups that are inimical to Western values I'm pretty sure Russia will also be funneling mony to the extreme-left. Why bet on one horse if you can bet on two and thus maximalise the chaos created....

(1)Oh. They do that for sure. It's often forgotten their goal isn't for the far right to win so much as to sow division.

(2)However it is the right that they provide the most support to, seeing them as both the most desirable outcome if there must be one and easiest to manipulate. Its also the right that has proven by far the most dangerous this millennium.

1) yes.

2) I wouldn't be so sure of that (re the latter part of your assertion. re the first part it's probably so that currently most support flows rightwards rather than leftwards. But who knows given the left's authoritarian streak has been reasserting itself ever more the last few years. In any case: from a Russian viewpoint it's money well spent).

The (far) right has in most western countries more or less lost control over the administration after the 'March through the institutions' by the left.
Not to mention the fact that over the past decades everything has been shifting to the left, so much so that even center right parties can be considered as leftist. Obviously the left has been shifting leftwards too, to such an extent that they became bobo-left and lost their traditional voting public in many countries. They all shifted to the 'right'.
As for these far-right parties: often enough, if you look at their programmes, especially the economical part of it, they're just as leftist as the left. Often enough the only thing a party needs to be labeled 'far-right' is an opposition to open borders and mass-migration, and all the problems these two things bring with them (Apprently M6 had a 'Zone Interdite' docu about Roubaix, though it seemed a bit more like Afghanistan). But they generally don't get elected to government, and if they do there's not much change. Borders are still open, mass-migration is ongoing.

As it is: the right may get more votes but they can't do much with them, and they certainly don't have control over the administration, education and the cultural parts of society.

That said: mileage may vary based on your biases.