I sometimes listen to podcasts about the secrets behind the best-known magic tricks, such as the three-shell game, mentalism and levitation, and after reading recent news from Russia, I saw an analogy to how Russian propaganda has achieved the seemingly impossible. Defying common sense, the Kremlin continues to proclaim with a straight face that its attack on Ukraine was an act of self-defense.
Most magic tricks combine two strategies, one to produce the desired effect, and another to distract the audience from what is really going on. Russia is doing the same with recent statements that are clearly designed to raise regional tensions around Ukraine.
The Russian government approved a list of 47 foreign states and territories whose neoliberal attitudes supposedly threaten people with “traditional Russian spiritual and moral values.” Those on the list are now officially designated as “enemy states.” Gone is any pretense of supporting a “multipolar” world. If you do not share Russia’s values, you are the enemy.
Among those who apparently share Russia’s values are North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran. The common element across these regimes is that they regard the “European Enlightenment” as the ultimate evil. The conflict is thus elevated to a metaphysical-religious level, and whenever religion enters directly into politics, the threat of deadly violence is never far behind.
Beneath all the talk of a new multipolar world is an eschatological vision of a total war to extinction between two opposites.
Hence, soon after releasing his “enemies list,” Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a new nuclear doctrine that expands “the category of states and military alliances in relation to which nuclear deterrence is carried out.”
In a pointed warning to the West, he announced that any attack on Russia by a non-nuclear state that is backed by a nuclear-armed one would be considered a “joint attack.”
Moreover, the Kremlin reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Belarus, which forms part of its “Union State.” In other words, any case where an enemy “creates critical danger to our sovereignty” is a potential casus belli for a nuclear conflict.
Such statements cannot but make us nostalgic for the good old days of the Cold War, when both sides wisely avoided direct nuclear threats and announced that they would use nuclear arms only in response to a nuclear strike by the other side. Under the conditions of “mutual assured destruction,” nobody dared to raise the possibility of a nuclear first strike.
Now, Russia is not only asserting its right to a first strike; it is even expanding the conditions for justifying it.
Of course, an actual Russian first strike remains unlikely. However, in military matters, words are never just words. It is all too easy for one side to become trapped by its own rhetoric.
After thousands of pagers exploded in Lebanon, Iran’s delegate to the UN said that Israel had again “crossed a red line.” At a time when “red lines” are being crossed regularly, such statements can only make the situation more dangerous. After all, there must be real red lines somewhere, but they might not be well understood, implying that we would not know where they lie until they have been crossed.
The obvious response to Putin is that he is the one who crossed the red line by issuing nuclear threats. Like those commentators who see the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war as a proxy war between Russia and NATO, he would have us believe that Russia was attacked first. Can this be true? Israel would say that it is just acting in self-defense in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, but much is riding on how one defines “self” here.
If I occupy territory that is not mine and then proclaim it mine (such as the West Bank or parts of Ukraine), and if the people who live there resist me, am I acting in self-defense when I crush them?
This brings us back to the magician strategies of Russian state propaganda. By accusing his opponents of what he is already doing, Putin wants to divert attention from the fact that he has stolen land and declared it his own.
If you accept that Crimea, Donbas and any other area with “traditional Russian” values (perhaps the Baltic countries or Moldova?) is being threatened, or that the Ukrainian nation is some fanciful modern construct, you have fallen for Putin’s trick.
Understanding Putin’s sleight of hand matters for the near term, because his combination of propaganda strategies has rendered rational peace negotiations practically impossible.
When the terms of negotiation have been falsified from the outset, what progress can be made?
Reflecting on the perpetual calls for peace in Ukraine, Slovenian historian Luka Lisjak Gabrijelcic is right to caution that, “Peace is all too precious to be left to peaceniks.”
Add Putin’s third strategy of deception — presenting a brutal war of conquest as a defense of spiritual values — and his legerdemain looks almost insuperable. All our hope now resides in that “almost.”
Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and the author, most recently, of Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
Taiwan faces complex challenges like other Asia-Pacific nations, including demographic decline, income inequality and climate change. In fact, its challenges might be even more pressing. The nation struggles with rising income inequality, declining birthrates and soaring housing costs while simultaneously navigating intensifying global competition among major powers. To remain competitive in the global talent market, Taiwan has been working to create a more welcoming environment and legal framework for foreign professionals. One of the most significant steps in this direction was the enactment of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals (外國專業人才延攬及僱用法) in 2018. Subsequent amendments in
RSS