> These assumptions have to be analyzed closely, without any taboos. One often hears that we should draw a strict line of separation between Putin’s politics and the great Russian culture, but this line of separation is much more porous than it may appear. We should resolutely reject the idea that, after years of patiently trying to resolve the Ukrainian crisis through negotiations, Russia was finally forced/compelled to attack Ukraine – one is never forced to attack and annihilate a whole country. The roots are much deeper; I am ready to call them properly metaphysical.
> Yes, the liberal west is hypocritical, applying its high standards very selectively. But hypocrisy means you violate the standards you proclaim, and in this way you open yourself up to inherent criticism – when we criticize the liberal west, we use its own standards. What Russia is offering is a world without hypocrisy – because it is without global ethical standards, practicing just pragmatic “respect” for differences. We have seen clearly what this means when, after the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they instantly made a deal with China. China accepts the new Afghanistan while the Taliban will ignore what China is doing to Uyghurs – this is, in nuce, the new globalization advocated by Russia. And the only way to defend what is worth saving in our liberal tradition is to ruthlessly insist on its universality. The moment we apply double standards, we are no less “pragmatic” than Russia.
The more I read from Žižek, the more I respect the guy. Tankies on life support.
Also:
> Medvedev predicts that, because of the war in Ukraine, “in some states, hunger may occur due to the food crisis” – a statement of breathtaking cynicism.
Basically, “sacrifice 40 million Ukrainians to save 400 million in the third world”. They work on the same logic as the primary school bullies who steal your pencil box and then demand you buy it back.
Why do people keep saying “Ukraine crisis” instead of Russo-Ukraine war or Russian invasion of Ukraine? The first ones who said it were the CCP and India but now people keep saying “Ukraine crisis” as if the blame/issue is on Ukraine and not Russia.
Žižek my beloved!
Sooo….Russia is advancing – after 90 days.
Someone explain to me the rational of both the extreme povs, that are either:
“Russia would conquer Warsaw in 10 days” or
“Ukraine can fully expell all russian forces from Ukraine” ?
This war is stalling. It’s stalling for months to come without signifcant movement and will cost thousands of more lives. All the while the worlds attention will slowly shift month after month and all that remains is a frozen conflict on the frozen grounds in October.
Someone might think ahead for once how this is the most likely outcome by now.
>Europe now promises to help Ukraine transport the grain by railway and truck – but this is clearly not enough. A step more is needed: a clear demand to open the port for the export of grain, inclusive of sending protective military ships there. It’s not about Ukraine, it’s about the hunger of hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia. Here should the red line be drawn.
The same millions in Africa and Asia that don’t see Ukraine as anything they should care about? How about that instead: these affected countries demand the port to be open on pain of enacting sanctions against Russia (like closing their skies to Russian aircraft, denying Russian vessels access to their ports, etc.)
7 comments
> These assumptions have to be analyzed closely, without any taboos. One often hears that we should draw a strict line of separation between Putin’s politics and the great Russian culture, but this line of separation is much more porous than it may appear. We should resolutely reject the idea that, after years of patiently trying to resolve the Ukrainian crisis through negotiations, Russia was finally forced/compelled to attack Ukraine – one is never forced to attack and annihilate a whole country. The roots are much deeper; I am ready to call them properly metaphysical.
> Yes, the liberal west is hypocritical, applying its high standards very selectively. But hypocrisy means you violate the standards you proclaim, and in this way you open yourself up to inherent criticism – when we criticize the liberal west, we use its own standards. What Russia is offering is a world without hypocrisy – because it is without global ethical standards, practicing just pragmatic “respect” for differences. We have seen clearly what this means when, after the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they instantly made a deal with China. China accepts the new Afghanistan while the Taliban will ignore what China is doing to Uyghurs – this is, in nuce, the new globalization advocated by Russia. And the only way to defend what is worth saving in our liberal tradition is to ruthlessly insist on its universality. The moment we apply double standards, we are no less “pragmatic” than Russia.
The more I read from Žižek, the more I respect the guy. Tankies on life support.
Also:
> Medvedev predicts that, because of the war in Ukraine, “in some states, hunger may occur due to the food crisis” – a statement of breathtaking cynicism.
Basically, “sacrifice 40 million Ukrainians to save 400 million in the third world”. They work on the same logic as the primary school bullies who steal your pencil box and then demand you buy it back.
Why do people keep saying “Ukraine crisis” instead of Russo-Ukraine war or Russian invasion of Ukraine? The first ones who said it were the CCP and India but now people keep saying “Ukraine crisis” as if the blame/issue is on Ukraine and not Russia.
Žižek my beloved!
Sooo….Russia is advancing – after 90 days.
Someone explain to me the rational of both the extreme povs, that are either:
“Russia would conquer Warsaw in 10 days” or
“Ukraine can fully expell all russian forces from Ukraine” ?
This war is stalling. It’s stalling for months to come without signifcant movement and will cost thousands of more lives. All the while the worlds attention will slowly shift month after month and all that remains is a frozen conflict on the frozen grounds in October.
Someone might think ahead for once how this is the most likely outcome by now.
>Europe now promises to help Ukraine transport the grain by railway and truck – but this is clearly not enough. A step more is needed: a clear demand to open the port for the export of grain, inclusive of sending protective military ships there. It’s not about Ukraine, it’s about the hunger of hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia. Here should the red line be drawn.
The same millions in Africa and Asia that don’t see Ukraine as anything they should care about? How about that instead: these affected countries demand the port to be open on pain of enacting sanctions against Russia (like closing their skies to Russian aircraft, denying Russian vessels access to their ports, etc.)