Following former US president Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York publicly appealed to those who had voted for her and Trump. She wanted to know what motivated such an apparently inconsistent choice, and the predominant answer she heard was that she and Trump seemed more sincere, whereas US Vice President Kamala Harris came off as too calculating.
It was a fruitful exercise, and we can ask the same of leftists who support Palestinians and Russia. After all, the latter has been bombing Ukrainian cities until they resemble Gaza, and just as the right-wing parties in Israel’s government want to create a Greater Israel, the Kremlin hopes to create a Greater Russia. Russia’s eliminationist project should thus remain top of mind whenever we assess developments on the ground.
Immediately after the recent decision by US President Joe Biden’s administration to allow Ukraine to launch US-furnished ATACMS missiles (with a range of up to 306km) into Russia, the Kremlin warned that any use of Western arms against the Russian Federation could trigger a nuclear response under its new nuclear doctrine. Nonetheless, the Ukrainians countered by firing six ATACMS missiles at a military facility in the Bryansk region (adjacent to the Ukrainian border) the next day.
Although Russia claims that the damage was negligible — five of the missiles were shot down, and there were no casualties — following the letter of its new nuclear doctrine would mean that it is now at war with the US and has the right to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. With some of those around Trump already accusing Biden of taking a dangerous step toward a new world war, is it fair to say that Ukraine went too far? Has it disturbed the fragile balance that kept the conflict limited?
Before jumping to this conclusion, one must remember that the US has permitted Ukraine to target locations primarily in Kursk, the border region from which Russia has been launching many of its attacks against Ukrainian positions.
As outgoing EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell put it: “Ukraine should be able to use the arms we provided to them not only to stop the arrow, but also to be able to hit the archers.”
Moreover, recall that Russia had escalated its own campaign against Ukraine mere days earlier, blanketing the entire country with drone and missile attacks against civilian energy infrastructure just before the onset of winter. While six Ukrainian missiles caused panic all around the world, Russia’s systematic destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure has been normalized — much like Israel’s razing of northern Gaza.
The situation is as obscene as it is absurd. Russia, having launched a war of conquest against its peaceful neighbor, now wants to keep its own territory out of the war, and it accuses Ukraine, the victim, of “expanding” the conflict. If Russia is serious about its new nuclear doctrine, let us offer an equally serious counter doctrine: If an independent country is attacked with non-nuclear forces by a nuclear superpower, its allies have the right — even the duty — to provide it with nuclear weapons so that it has a chance of deterring an attack.
It is often said that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants a return to the Soviet Union and Stalinism; but this is not right. Rather, his regime is sustained by a vision of the pre-1917 imperial era, when czarist Russia’s zone of influence encompassed not only Poland, but also Finland. Time would tell if Putin’s neo-czarism is more than a pipe dream. In the emerging multipolar world, the rise of strong empires, each with its own zone of influence, is quite conceivable.
As Putin told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2022, “sovereignty cannot be segmented or fragmented in the 21st century.”
Upholding political sovereignty and national identity is essential, but so is strengthening everything that “determines our country’s economic, financial, professional and technological independence,” he said. Clearly, only a new imperial Russia, not Ukraine, Belarus or Finland, would be able to enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty.
Making matters worse, on the same day that Putin announced the new Russian nuclear doctrine, the BBC reported that, “air pollution in India’s capital Delhi has soared to extremely severe levels, choking residents and engulfing the city in thick smog,” disrupting air transport, forcing schools to close, and halting construction.
“Experts warn that the situation could get worse in Delhi in the coming days,” the BBC said.
While Russia indulges in imperial aggression and rattles its nuclear saber, hundreds of millions of people are finding it harder to breathe. Our media trumpet the use of Western weapons against Russia as front page “breaking news,” and our blinkered leftists regard Ukraine’s “excessive” defense as a dangerous escalation. However, a threat to our very survival barely merits mention.
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 of Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS