 |
| From DiEM25. Revanchism in Europe |
1. NATO dun it. Reckless pushing east of the Treaty countries made Putin nervous. He repeatedly warned them. They did it anyway. So he had no choice but to push back. Self-defence in Ukraine.
2. Putin the revanchist. Had to get back the “old countries”. The collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century”, said Putin. A Russian neo-imperialist in action in Ukraine.
Both views have strong arguments. I lean to the latter, with a tinge of “NATO offered the excuse”.
Whichever is true, there’s something I don’t get: whatever you lean to, and even if you lean totally to the “NATO is responsible” camp, if you’re in the west, why would you barrack for a Putin win? That I find puzzling. I do see many in Twitter gloating when Putin has an advance and nonplussed when he has a retreat. Why that? I don’t get it.
ADDED: To say Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons complicates matters is surely the greatest understatement. We can’t dismiss it. After all, everyone was dismissing Putin invading Ukraine, right up to the moment he did. And then what do the No.1 camp say? It’s still all the west's fault? Can we possibly contemplate the horror of horrors? A nuclear war on European soil? And then whose fault is it?
Could that be why there’s Putin supportism? That if he “wins” or think he wins, if he has a credible off ramp, then he does not go nuke? Perhaps. And it may be right. If they explained it like that, rather than in uniformly anti-western terms, might help their case.
Writing this I come across Diem25.org a group of mostly left wingers, out to radically increase transparency and democracy in the EU. The ex Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis is a founding member. I’ve a lot of respect for him. Here is their Manifesto.
