Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine - Slavoj Žižek

[Nomad4Ever]

Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine | Slavoj Zizek

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

www.theguardian.com

An interesting OP-ed from one of my favorite leftists, Slavoj Žižek, on the war in Ukraine and how it should be responded to. I've snipped out some of the important arguments and put it together into something cohesive, but I encourage you to read the entire piece yourself.

[snip]

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

Those who cling to pacifism in the face of the Russian attack on Ukraine remain caught in their own version of “imagine”. Imagine a world in which tensions are no longer resolved through armed conflicts … Europe persisted in this world of “imagine”, ignoring the brutal reality outside its borders. Now it’s the time to awaken.

Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia. True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance: they risked the impossible, defying pragmatic calculations, and the least we owe them is full support, and to do this, we need a stronger Nato – but not as a prolongation of the US politics.

While some leftists claim that the ongoing war is in the interest of the Nato industrial-military complex, which uses the need for new arms to avoid crisis and gain new profits, their true message to Ukraine is: OK, you are victims of a brutal aggression, but do not rely on our arms because in this way you play in the hands of the industrial-military complex …

The disorientation caused by the Ukrainian war is producing strange bedfellows like Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky who “come from opposing ends of the political spectrum

What is absolutely unacceptable for a true leftist today is not only to support Russia but also to make a more “modest” neutral claim that the left is divided between pacifists and supporters of Ukraine, and that one should treat this division as a minor fact which shouldn’t affect the left’s global struggle against global capitalism.

When a country is occupied, it is the ruling class which is usually bribed to collaborate with the occupiers to maintain its privileged position, so that the struggle against the occupiers becomes a priority. The same can go for the struggle against racism; in a state of racial tension and exploitation, the only way to effectively struggle for the working class is to focus on fighting racism (this is why any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle).

Today, one cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine. To be a leftist who “shows understanding” for Russia is like to be one of those leftists who, before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, took seriously German “anti-imperialist” rhetoric directed at the UK and advocated neutrality in the war of Germany against France and the UK.

[snip]

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Being pro-NATO is a very contentious position among leftists. Most leftist adopt an anti-NATO position by default as NATO is made up of primarily capitalist countries and it's primary member, the US, is the poster child of global capitalism.

Zizek here takes a very different view (and one I happen to agree with). He argues for a stronger NATO, but not one that is an extension of US foreign policy. He argues that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an attack on the idea of a unified Europe and that Europe should essentially work together to not rely on US military strength for their autonomy. He also argues that an occupied Ukraine would see leftists primarily focused on restoring Ukrainian autonomy, rather than overthrowing capitalist systems.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine | Slavoj Zizek

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

www.theguardian.com

An interesting OP-ed from one of my favorite leftists, Slavoj Žižek, on the war in Ukraine and how it should be responded to. I've snipped out some of the important arguments and put it together into something cohesive, but I encourage you to read the entire piece yourself.

[snip]

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

Those who cling to pacifism in the face of the Russian attack on Ukraine remain caught in their own version of “imagine”. Imagine a world in which tensions are no longer resolved through armed conflicts … Europe persisted in this world of “imagine”, ignoring the brutal reality outside its borders. Now it’s the time to awaken.

Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia. True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance: they risked the impossible, defying pragmatic calculations, and the least we owe them is full support, and to do this, we need a stronger Nato – but not as a prolongation of the US politics.

While some leftists claim that the ongoing war is in the interest of the Nato industrial-military complex, which uses the need for new arms to avoid crisis and gain new profits, their true message to Ukraine is: OK, you are victims of a brutal aggression, but do not rely on our arms because in this way you play in the hands of the industrial-military complex …

The disorientation caused by the Ukrainian war is producing strange bedfellows like Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky who “come from opposing ends of the political spectrum

What is absolutely unacceptable for a true leftist today is not only to support Russia but also to make a more “modest” neutral claim that the left is divided between pacifists and supporters of Ukraine, and that one should treat this division as a minor fact which shouldn’t affect the left’s global struggle against global capitalism.

When a country is occupied, it is the ruling class which is usually bribed to collaborate with the occupiers to maintain its privileged position, so that the struggle against the occupiers becomes a priority. The same can go for the struggle against racism; in a state of racial tension and exploitation, the only way to effectively struggle for the working class is to focus on fighting racism (this is why any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle).

Today, one cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine. To be a leftist who “shows understanding” for Russia is like to be one of those leftists who, before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, took seriously German “anti-imperialist” rhetoric directed at the UK and advocated neutrality in the war of Germany against France and the UK.

[snip]

Pacifism? Go join up and cure this situation.

 

[Mr Person]

Pacifism? Go join up and cure this situation.

It's as if you deliberately skip the part of debate in which you're supposed to make sure what you want to say is relevant to the discussion, ignore the part about basic decency, and leap straight to making stupidly and aggressively-sounding defiant statements that don't rebut anything you are responding to; as if you're one goal is telling yourself "Whooo! I said '**** you' to someone not on the right!"

Now maybe - just maybe - if the original post argued that if you do not personally sign up regardless of individual considerations you are a pacifist and not signing up is the wrong response to the Ukraine invasion. Maybe. But it didn't say that, now did it?

 

[RetiredUSN]

It's as if you deliberately skip the part of debate in which you're supposed to make sure what you want to say is relevant to the discussion, ignore the part about basic decency, and leap straight to making stupidly and aggressively-sounding defiant statements that don't rebut anything you are responding to; as if you're one goal is telling yourself "Whooo! I said '**** you' to someone not on the right!"

Now maybe - just maybe - if the original post argued that if you do not personally sign up regardless of individual considerations you are a pacifist and not signing up is the wrong response to the Ukraine invasion. Maybe. But it didn't say that, now did it?

LMAO

Well Hello Mr. Person ...... you and your ilk are so philosophical about war until the other side has power.

Obama declared that he would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 11 months if he were elected. You and your ilk were left in awe and fell in line in typical cult fashion. Then he went on to bomb 7 different countries and violating the war powers act while you and your ilk decided to become philosophical all over again.

Maybe now you can see why nobody in the real world gives a shit when you and your other liberals speak of war.

 

[Felis Leo]

Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine | Slavoj Zizek

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

www.theguardian.com

An interesting OP-ed from one of my favorite leftists, Slavoj Žižek, on the war in Ukraine and how it should be responded to. I've snipped out some of the important arguments and put it together into something cohesive, but I encourage you to read the entire piece yourself.

[snip]

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

Those who cling to pacifism in the face of the Russian attack on Ukraine remain caught in their own version of “imagine”. Imagine a world in which tensions are no longer resolved through armed conflicts … Europe persisted in this world of “imagine”, ignoring the brutal reality outside its borders. Now it’s the time to awaken.

Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia. True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance: they risked the impossible, defying pragmatic calculations, and the least we owe them is full support, and to do this, we need a stronger Nato – but not as a prolongation of the US politics.

While some leftists claim that the ongoing war is in the interest of the Nato industrial-military complex, which uses the need for new arms to avoid crisis and gain new profits, their true message to Ukraine is: OK, you are victims of a brutal aggression, but do not rely on our arms because in this way you play in the hands of the industrial-military complex …

The disorientation caused by the Ukrainian war is producing strange bedfellows like Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky who “come from opposing ends of the political spectrum

What is absolutely unacceptable for a true leftist today is not only to support Russia but also to make a more “modest” neutral claim that the left is divided between pacifists and supporters of Ukraine, and that one should treat this division as a minor fact which shouldn’t affect the left’s global struggle against global capitalism.

When a country is occupied, it is the ruling class which is usually bribed to collaborate with the occupiers to maintain its privileged position, so that the struggle against the occupiers becomes a priority. The same can go for the struggle against racism; in a state of racial tension and exploitation, the only way to effectively struggle for the working class is to focus on fighting racism (this is why any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle).

Today, one cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine. To be a leftist who “shows understanding” for Russia is like to be one of those leftists who, before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, took seriously German “anti-imperialist” rhetoric directed at the UK and advocated neutrality in the war of Germany against France and the UK.

[snip]

The man shows strong moral clarity and came to the correct conclusion. I respect that.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The man shows strong moral clarity and came to the correct conclusion. I respect that.

Even if one is not a leftist, I think it is just generally an interesting perspective and a worthwhile philosophy of exploring geopolitics that is not often given much discussion. Sadly outlets like Jacobin tend to be represented as “the far left” in public discourse.

The “anti-Russian imperialism but also anti-US imperialism” crowd is sparingly small. But I think he demonstrates quite well that you can arrive at a strong stance that opposes Russian imperialism through leftist philosophy.

Though I imagine proximity to Russia also greatly informs his perspective lol. It’s very easy to say “NATO bad” from the comfort of the US.

 

[Tangmo]

Being pro-NATO is a very contentious position among leftists. He argues for a stronger NATO, but not one that is an extension of US foreign policy. Europe should essentially work together to not rely on US military strength for their autonomy.

That neither floats nor does it fly. It is in fact a ton of bricks.

Europeans/NATO are long locked into the USA carrying the defense of the West, ie, Europe & USA.

Europeans love not spending more than the dime they have to spend on defense, military, prevention of war. They're addicted to meager military spending while the USA with its $22 Trillion economy puts out the big bucks and big military establishment and runs the show militarily, strategically, operationally. So the view in the post needs to respect the old truism it ignores, ie, he who has the gold makes the rules.

Europeans are not going to change about not spending more than the minimum they absolutely have to on military. To Europeans it's a huge bargain mutually agreed in Brussels and Washington. USA makes the guns and bombs and Europe makes the bread and butter and gravy (okay, sauce). This will never change. The only question in Europe is who gets how much butter given everyone has the birthright to as much butter as they can consume between cradle and grave.

France has been pursing this line of military and foreign policy independence from the USA since De Gaulle in the 1960s and they're still doing whackamole at it. Likewise the idea of a European Army has been around since the 1960s and continues to spin its wheels. Europeans have embedded themselves in NATO and they're going to keep it no matter and the USA will continue to fund it and dominate it. Russia-Ukraine reinforced this in concrete embedded by rods of reinforcing steel.

Who anyway would lead a European only NATO? A General from Germany? A secretary general from France? A board chairman from Italy? This needs to be approached by realism much more than by ideology/philosophy over tea.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine | Slavoj Zizek

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

www.theguardian.com

An interesting OP-ed from one of my favorite leftists, Slavoj Žižek, on the war in Ukraine and how it should be responded to. I've snipped out some of the important arguments and put it together into something cohesive, but I encourage you to read the entire piece yourself.

[snip]

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

Those who cling to pacifism in the face of the Russian attack on Ukraine remain caught in their own version of “imagine”. Imagine a world in which tensions are no longer resolved through armed conflicts … Europe persisted in this world of “imagine”, ignoring the brutal reality outside its borders. Now it’s the time to awaken.

Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia. True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance: they risked the impossible, defying pragmatic calculations, and the least we owe them is full support, and to do this, we need a stronger Nato – but not as a prolongation of the US politics.

While some leftists claim that the ongoing war is in the interest of the Nato industrial-military complex, which uses the need for new arms to avoid crisis and gain new profits, their true message to Ukraine is: OK, you are victims of a brutal aggression, but do not rely on our arms because in this way you play in the hands of the industrial-military complex …

The disorientation caused by the Ukrainian war is producing strange bedfellows like Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky who “come from opposing ends of the political spectrum

What is absolutely unacceptable for a true leftist today is not only to support Russia but also to make a more “modest” neutral claim that the left is divided between pacifists and supporters of Ukraine, and that one should treat this division as a minor fact which shouldn’t affect the left’s global struggle against global capitalism.

When a country is occupied, it is the ruling class which is usually bribed to collaborate with the occupiers to maintain its privileged position, so that the struggle against the occupiers becomes a priority. The same can go for the struggle against racism; in a state of racial tension and exploitation, the only way to effectively struggle for the working class is to focus on fighting racism (this is why any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle).

Today, one cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine. To be a leftist who “shows understanding” for Russia is like to be one of those leftists who, before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, took seriously German “anti-imperialist” rhetoric directed at the UK and advocated neutrality in the war of Germany against France and the UK.

[snip]

No reason to waste an opportunity to shove some far left anti-USA propaganda down people's throats. The part of this propaganda piece that you weeded out is the radical idea that the proxy war between the US and Russia is going to spread to Europe proper and destroy it. Your favorite leftist asshole is asserting that the US is just as guilty as Russia. He wants the US to not be the head of NATO, and does some fear mongering with a what if Trump wins in 2024. This is nothing but propaganda aimed at the US, exploiting the war on Ukraine to divide Europe from the US and to paint the US as evil.

Which is why you had to cherry pick this opinion piece to death. You had to weed out the compleate bullshit. Basically, the far left being the dishonest creatures that they are.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Your favorite leftist asshole is asserting that the US is just as guilty as Russia.

This is a monstrously poor reading of the piece [which I encouraged everyone to read to entirety of, as I was not trying to hide anything]. He equates the IRAQ war to that of Russia's war in Ukraine. He does not claim the US is somehow equally responsible as Russia for THIS war, and encourages the reader NOT to view the war as a proxy war between the US and Russia.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This is a monstrously poor reading of the piece [which I encouraged everyone to read to entirety of, as I was not trying to hide anything]. He equates the IRAQ war to that of Russia's war in Ukraine. He does not claim the US is somehow equally responsible as Russia for THIS war, and encourages the reader NOT to view the war as a proxy war between the US and Russia.

I did indeed read the entire article.

I read the part where he equates Bush with Putin. I liked neither Bush, but it is pretty dishonest to claim that Bush is just like Putin. But the point in even bringing that up in the article was to make the reader distrust the US. Add to that the quip about what if Trump gets elected, another attempt to make the reader lose trust. And the part that you bolded on purpose: "but not as a prolongation of the US politics."

And on and on, trying to get the reader to distrust the US.

And do not try to lie to me believing that I did not read the article and understand it. Just as guilty as Russia did not mean for the war, that was your bullshit stawman.

Look at this shit: "The answer is clear: at that point, the European legacy will be lost, and Europe will be de facto divided between an American and a Russian sphere of influence. In short, Europe itself will become the place of a war that seems to have no end …"


You Cherry picked the article because there were other points that you purposely left out that tell a different story. Are you going to attack my reading skills some more? Probably, that seems your level of debate skills. What did you really expect would happen by posting a cherry picked portion of an opinion piece aimed at the far left?

I cannot let this pass: "yes, with all differences taken into account (Zelenskiy is not a dictator like Saddam), Bush did the same thing as Putin is now doing to Ukraine, so they should be both judged by the same standard." And thus the US is just as bad as Putins Russia. This is anti-American Propaganda designed to create hate in the reader.

The moron is asserting that the US carpet bombed and targeted civilians just like what Putin is doing in Ukraine. While I was against the Iraq war at every step. I would never characterize that we did what Putin is doing to Ukraine to Iraq. That is world class bullshit.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The OP's article is about pumping out misinformation and promoting and telling people in the far left what to think. In short, it's bad propaganda that exploits the war in Ukraine, it does not help Ukraine at all. Its only aim is to distract the far left from the Soviet flags on the battlefield and convince them not to support Putins ware of choice. The reasoning is because the Soviet symbolism and the prospect of a new Soviet union have confused some really far left idiots.

 

[Tigerace117]

No reason to waste an opportunity to shove some far left anti-USA propaganda down people's throats. The part of this propaganda piece that you weeded out is the radical idea that the proxy war between the US and Russia is going to spread to Europe proper and destroy it. Your favorite leftist asshole is asserting that the US is just as guilty as Russia. He wants the US to not be the head of NATO, and does some fear mongering with a what if Trump wins in 2024. This is nothing but propaganda aimed at the US, exploiting the war on Ukraine to divide Europe from the US and to paint the US as evil.

Which is why you had to cherry pick this opinion piece to death. You had to weed out the compleate bullshit. Basically, the far left being the dishonest creatures that they are.

Uh.....the War in Iraq WAS just as much a war of aggression as Russia’s war in Ukraine is today. Throwing a tantrum because you don’t like having to face that fact doesn’t change it.

 

[Tigerace117]

I did indeed read the entire article.

I read the part where he equates Bush with Putin. I liked neither Bush, but it is pretty dishonest to claim that Bush is just like Putin. But the point in even bringing that up in the article was to make the reader distrust the US. Add to that the quip about what if Trump gets elected, another attempt to make the reader lose trust. And the part that you bolded on purpose: "but not as a prolongation of the US politics."

And on and on, trying to get the reader to distrust the US.

And do not try to lie to me believing that I did not read the article and understand it. Just as guilty as Russia did not mean for the war, that was your bullshit stawman.

Look at this shit: "The answer is clear: at that point, the European legacy will be lost, and Europe will be de facto divided between an American and a Russian sphere of influence. In short, Europe itself will become the place of a war that seems to have no end …"


You Cherry picked the article because there were other points that you purposely left out that tell a different story. Are you going to attack my reading skills some more? Probably, that seems your level of debate skills. What did you really expect would happen by posting a cherry picked portion of an opinion piece aimed at the far left?

I cannot let this pass: "yes, with all differences taken into account (Zelenskiy is not a dictator like Saddam), Bush did the same thing as Putin is now doing to Ukraine, so they should be both judged by the same standard." And thus the US is just as bad as Putins Russia. This is anti-American Propaganda designed to create hate in the reader.

The moron is asserting that the US carpet bombed and targeted civilians just like what Putin is doing in Ukraine. While I was against the Iraq war at every step. I would never characterize that we did what Putin is doing to Ukraine to Iraq. That is world class bullshit.

The US has repeatedly pardoned war criminals who targeted and murdered Iraqi civilians and or POWs, and even hailed them as heroes— for example, the Nisour Square shooters, Eddie Gallagher, and Allan West. Hell, in the case of the Haditha massacre nobody even went to jail for the murders of two dozen Iraqi civilians.

It’s only “bullshit” in your mind because Americans HATE being held to the same standard we claim to hold others to.

 

[Luce]

Pacifism? Go join up and cure this situation.

You didn't read the OP at all, and now you have brought dishonor on yourself and your house with this knee-jerk reply.

 

[bomberfox]

No reason to waste an opportunity to shove some far left anti-USA propaganda down people's throats. The part of this propaganda piece that you weeded out is the radical idea that the proxy war between the US and Russia is going to spread to Europe proper and destroy it. Your favorite leftist asshole is asserting that the US is just as guilty as Russia. He wants the US to not be the head of NATO, and does some fear mongering with a what if Trump wins in 2024. This is nothing but propaganda aimed at the US, exploiting the war on Ukraine to divide Europe from the US and to paint the US as evil.

Which is why you had to cherry pick this opinion piece to death. You had to weed out the compleate bullshit. Basically, the far left being the dishonest creatures that they are.

Jeebus talk about strawman.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Uh.....the War in Iraq WAS just as much a war of aggression as Russia’s war in Ukraine is today. Throwing a tantrum because you don’t like having to face that fact doesn’t change it.

Yea dude whatever.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Jeebus talk about strawman.

You read the article right? Yes? No?

 

[Tigerace117]

Yea dude whatever.

You not liking the facts doesn’t change them bud.

 

[bomberfox]

You read the article right? Yes? No?

Yep. I did. The majority of it is pretty sound when considering the audience he is speaking to.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yep. I did. The majority of it is pretty sound when considering the audience he is speaking to.

It is propaganda at Ukraines expense. They hook you with rational sounding arguments and sprinkle it with what they are trying to push. That's how propaganda works. It is completely within reason for me to point that out. It's just as dishonest as MAGA. And since the unthinkable happened with what Trump attempted, I feel that my tolerance of radical groups has vaporized. Either people can just be honest and stop trying to take over the world or they can just piss off.

 

[bomberfox]

It is propaganda at Ukraines expense. They hook you with rational sounding arguments and sprinkle it with what they are trying to push. That's how propaganda works. It is completely within reason for me to point that out. It's just as dishonest as MAGA. And since the unthinkable happened with what Trump attempted, I feel that my tolerance of radical groups has vaporized. Either people can just be honest and stop trying to take over the world or they can just piss off.

Leftists trying to take over the world whut?
First of all we ****ing couldnt even if we wanted to and most of us deep down know it, even the tankies.

Secondly, he is promoting support for ukraine lol.

 

[bomberfox]

What are we going to do today Slavoj?