I post this thread from a left-wing activist from Finland because it seems to be very relevant to me - and speaks directly to the 'confused left' in countries like the UK:
Hat tip to Mike Parr.
The question is really fairly;y simple for the left: it is imperialism, or not?
And yes, I am aware that neoliberalism delivers its own form of hegemony, with which there is much to disagree.
But that's not the argument here. Please do not confuse the two.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This certainly does emphasise the pressures that obstruct a sensible discussion about maintaining peace. Fundamentally, people like me are being told to stick to the Russian imperialism argument and stop wittering on about the role of Nato and Western foreign policies in general. If we don’t, then we are doing nothing less than supporting the Putin agenda. This dishonesty and superficial intellectualism seems somehow routed in a belief that “THE LEFT” retains some form of nostalgic attachment to Russia from the Soviet era! For goodness sake! I would suggest we return to the core purpose of this site, the explanation and debate concerning MMT and related topics. Joining the media chorus about the Ukraine is better achieved somewhere else.
You can discuss the failures
You can suggest Ukraine should not be in NATO
But to extend the argument to excuse Russian imperialism is a step too far
That is the blind eye policy
I criticise Western policy on Ukraine
It does not mean I do not completely condemn what Putin is doing
And for your attempt to silence me you are on the banned list. Nice try, but it really did reveal your real colours
It’s a bit sad seeing this happen (banning people) but in a way there seems to be sort of blindness concerning imperialism.
I’m not sure if that blindness is peculiarly English? Would that be fair?
I know that my roots lie in Ireland on my mother’s side and Scotland on my father’s side (both RIP). Yet my upbringing was plain vanilla and very boring ‘English’. My family – for one reason or another – never celebrated our Celtic roots. It’s as simple as that. As I got older I dug those roots out and feel somehow proud and more substantial as a person – having red hair (well it was red!) made me stick out a lot as a boy and instead of seeing it as a burden I became quite proud of it as I got older. And it explained how Scotland used to make me feel when we went up there? I always just used to feel that I belonged there before I ever found out that my Dad hailed from Sutherland.
But – I never FELT Irish or Scottish – I would just be being fake if I said that I did. I just don’t. I found some form of expression of my latent ethnicity by becoming more aware of the shortcomings of the English culture that I had been naturalised into. I also feel a sense of loss there too you know, but it is feint. Feint. I had a female colleague at work who spoke in a very middle class English way. But the Irish side of her was hugely present – she saw family over there and supported Ireland in the rugby and made sure he only son was brought up in the bosom of her Irish relations as much as her English living household. And they have their Irish passports.
Other people too like Richard proudly carry their ethnic/cultural past with them in the present. I believe Richard’s cultural background is Irish and there will be Englishmen who carry their Welshness, Scottishness and even Cornish-ness proudly with them too (my Finance Director sounds as though he comes from the South-East but he knows who he supports during the 6 Nations – Wales – that’s where his roots lie and proudly too).
When you identify your origins strongly I think that you also carry the history of your people too – and that includes their suffering. Anyone who knows the history of the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh know that it is history that has been marked heavily by England, by the so-called (and aptly named I might add) ‘imperialism at home’ practised in these lands.
You will know about the Highland clearances and wars with the Scots and its subjugation; you’ll know how there was a concerted effort by the English to wipe out the Welsh language and you’ll know why the Irish don’t call the Union Jack ‘The Butcher’s Apron’ for nothing.
As a naturalised Englishman, I’m not moved by imperialism. I hate to admit it. It does not stab at my heart as it may for someone who harks from or lives in Scotland, Wales or Ireland or carries their past with them.
I mean – when was the last time we Englishman were killed on our land by foreign invaders? (No – I’m not talking about the blitz – OK – I’m talking about invasion right?!). You’d have to go a long way back. And of course, like all good Englishman we are taught that our history is one where we English have done the invading and conquering. For me – imperialism is something I’ve been conditioned to be proud of? Does that make sense? It’s not something I or my ancestors have had to endure or suffer very recently. We’ve dealt it out – or so they tell us.
Maybe the closest we’ve come to it is the odd IRA bombing campaign in the 1970’s maybe? And that wasn’t fun was it?
So when looking at the Ukrainian situation I’m more likely to be drawn to critiques of how we got there because it just happens to overlap with lots of thing I also personally despise – immoral international finance, weak regulation, corruption, a lack principles and values, American imperialism bending the world to its Randian, Neo-liberal view. To name a few.
I’m being honest about this because my lack of sensitivity to imperialism could be an English blind spot – and even be (perhaps) a blind spot on the part of the English Left?
I think that we English need to reflect a bit more on this.
We need to remember that others WILL be sensitive about imperialism because they have suffered it. And, in my view – they have every right to be sensitive about it because it is part of who they are in some way. And that is why they just cannot tolerate it no matter what other factors have brought it about.
Does that sound fair? I don’t know. I’m just trying to help – that’s all.
And thank you
“You will know about the Highland clearances and wars with the Scots and its subjugation”.
I’m afraid I find that notion overwrought. The Highland clearances were largely carried out by Scots. The major Scots engagements with a Greater Britain, the important ones that lasted; were quite, quite different. The Union of the Crowns was a Scots dynastic accession to the English throne in 1603, and the Union of Parliaments in 1707 was a decision of the Scots elite following the Glorious Revolution that finally secured Presbyterianism in 1690, and followed the failure of Darien in the late 1690s; leading the elite finally to discard the Scots Parliament that had created the Darien scheme (because the Crown hadn’t supported it). They made this decision principally for the ambition and opportunity of Empire, and that required Union. It was calculated, it was self-interested, it was even rational; and within the framework and understanding of early 18th century culture and diplomacy, it was remarkable for being a sober, civilised and mature negotiation freely entered into and signed by both sides. The Scots even received payment for accepting a sharre of England’s national debt (and effectively compensation for the Crown betrayal of Darien).
The Scots who made all the decisions in Scotland had what they wanted. It is easily protested that the ‘elite’ who made all the decisions came from a tiny proportion of the Scots population, but that was true of the proportionally only slightly larger English elite making the same decisions on the same terms, and more or less of almost every state in Europe; save, of course for the absolute monarchies.
Of course the history of Scotland I describe isn’t romantic, it isn’t attractive, and it isn’t popular. Its single merit is that it is closer to the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, I write as a Scot.
Having a Gaelic speaking grandmother who was brought up in a Croft in Sutherland, at the end of the glen from where they were cleared I’ve also read around a topic that is far more nuanced than the one sided argument one mostly hears. I have a family tree going far back and you can see when it must have happened. The SNP are far stronger in the central belt than in the Highlands and Islands who perhaps have a stronger grasp of their history. The clan chiefs – the Scottish ‘elite’ – bear much of the blame. However that does not fit with a purely nationalist narrative.
Similarly too many here see Central Europe through only an ‘English’ lens. An honest admission PSR. I’ll admit that until I started to really explore those Borderlands as Anne Applebaum has described them, on a bike from the Baltic to Black Sea (on the border with Ukraine), I had little idea of their history. It prompted me to read widely – Applebaum and Snyder in particular. It explains but does not excuse the lack of sympathy for countries along Russia’s borders, that have been repeatedly and brutally subjugated. Combined with a frankly bizarre sympathy for the subjugator. Over time Russia has been Tsarist, ‘socialist’ and now gangster capitalist but the underlying behaviour has sadly not changed. The lives of most of its citizens have not improved much either, much less than those countries that managed to de-colonise
It’s just not good enough to pin the blame on the West. Those countries that have escaped from being subjugated colonies of Russia – and colonies and empire are the right terms – have to a greater or lesser extent moved far closer to a genuinely democratic model with great improvements to the lives of their citizens. Of course they are imperfect – Estonia and Hungary perhaps representing two ends of a spectrum. Both countries that were invaded by Soviet forces to reimpose control and stop democracy happened. In the case of Hungary 1956, cheered on by sections of the U.K. Left. Would not have helped Labour’s election chances at the time.
Just reflect on how difficult it is to build those necessary institutions from scratch before complaining that they are imperfect. It’s why the U.K. government is so keen to undermine institutions that might hold it in check. Perhaps the greatest contribution the EU has made has been to help rebuild those institutions, as important as the funding. That EU so despised by the Far Left who would seem to prefer that that these countries stayed as part of the Soviet empire.
After seeing multiple cemeteries in the Lithuanian countryside, I visited the Holocaust centre in Vilnius. Lithuania has a very ‘mixed’ reputation as to its treatment of Jews in the war to say the least. In summary what I learned from them, whilst the Nazis picked on the Jews as a focus for their murderous brutality, the Russians were indiscriminate. On balance the average Lithuanian preferred the Germans, not because they were Nazis but because overall they were a lot less murderous and unpleasant than the Russians. Which also explains why Lithuanian partisans were fighting the Russians well into the 1950s. Visit the KGB offices whilst you are there. As shocking as Dachau where I have also been.
Following recent events, a similar story emerges from Ukraine. Recall that the German invasion of Russia and then Ukraine followed the Ukrainian famine precipitated by Stalin in which somewhere between 4 and 10 million Ukrainians died. We know about the Holocaust but not the Holodomor. Not surprisingly, many Ukrainians chose to fight with the Germans against a Russia they justifiably loathed. That choice to fight with the Germans has been the basis of Russian smears about Ukraine being a Nazi country, which the Far Left in the U.K. have lapped up and repeated. Trotting out the lines from Russia Today. Despite the Ukrainian President being Jewish.
If I were Ukrainian listening to those 12 Labour MPs I would be disgusted at their ignorance and naked political bias.
From Anne Applebaum:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/ukraine-identity-russia-patriotism/622902/
Thanks for posting it Richard.
One of the earlier comments – re the danger of a democratic Ukraine that was not corrupt – being seen as the key threat by Putin is probably on the money. A country next door to Russia, sharing a common language but on a “different track” would be too much to bear. TThis would mean Russian language radio and TV programmes from Ukraine delivering a different narrative – to Russia. Ooops! cann’t have that.
Cutting out Putins blathering bollocks it comes down to this.
I’d also note that Kaliningrad and the small bit of Moldova are places where Russia could cause more trouble.
Thanks for posting this thread, Richard (also the links to the articles by Snyder). Well worth reading and as a ‘leftist’ I agree entirely with my Finish fellow traveler.
As I noted in another comment this morning, the issue of whether Ukraine joins NATO is a complete distraction cooked up by Putin and co. As Janne points out, this is about the danger to Putin – and thus to his ‘managed democracy’ form of totalitarian state – from having a potentially successful liberal democracy (as Ukraine seems to be becoming) on his doorstep. Given the human, economic, cultural and historical ties between Ukraine and Russia, and thus the frequent travel between the countries and interaction of the two peoples, too many Russians might eventually ask the question, why can’t Russia become something similar.
Incidentally, and this seems to be being ignored, but it’s not very long ago that we saw China take the actions they did against Hong Kong for exactly the same reason. That didn’t result in war, but note the increased and continuing rhetoric against Taiwan from China precisely because, once again, we have a successful democratic state which by it’s very existence as a democracy is a fundamental, ideological threat to a neighbouring totalitarian state.
So, given Finland’s geographic location next to Russia, and indeed the Baltic states too, and given the undoubted democratic credentials that all of these countries have worked so hard to develop over the years since they became independent from the USSR/Russia I don’t think anyone living in a country that doesn’t abut Russia should pass off what’s happening in Ukraine as fundamentally anything other than what it is: a direct attack on liberal democracy by its ideological opposite – totalitarianism. If you’re on the left and can’t see that then something’s seriously wrong with your thinking.
Agreed
Thanks for sharing.
Although, with respect, the screenshots from Twitter look really awful on a phone (squished in the margins.
He provided a link just below to this very thread:
https://jmkorhonen.net/2022/02/23/on-the-kremlins-imperialism/
Maybe use a thread reader or a link to grab and collate the relevant text in future?
Sorry – time is of the essence for me, sometimes very often
Apologies for another post, but this, in my view, is unmissable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9hZ6AhJIaw
@ 29 minutes in – the video shows Kenya’s UN ambassador telling it the way it is in the UN.
One of the best speeches I have heard in a very long time & is, obviously, about Russia/Ukraine; ethnicity and religion – but from an African perspective.
It was a brilliant speech
That was a very interesting video. Aaron Bastani mentioned ethnic Koreans in China. There are actually rather a lot of them, about 2.5 million.
It reminded me that I hadn’t looked at the North Korean press for a while. The internet versions of North Korean newspapers are aimed an audience of ethnic Koreans outside North Korea. Most North Koreans don’t have any internet access. I can’t read Korean there are usually Chinese and/or English editions, both of which I can cope with.
It seems that Kim Jong Un has taken a leaf out of Putin’s playbook and is stirring things up.
Here is a link to the English version of Rodong Simmun: http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/ This newspaper is dedicated to “Kim Jong Un’s Revolutionary Activities“ can be thought of a guide to what the regime is thinking. Nothing gets into it without government approval.
On the front page is a link to an article entitled “Birth Anniversary of Chairman Kim Jong Il Commemorated by Koreans in Russia“. The article purports to describe a speech given to The United Confederation of Koreans in Russia, an organisation that may or may not exist. Apparently Koreans in Japan, China and Mongolia have also been celebrating Kim Jong Il’s birthday by listening to speeches, and reciting poems, but it is only in the Russian case that anyone says anything like:
“He praised the Chairman as an outstanding leader who staunchly defended the country’s sovereignty and put the people’s dignity on the highest eminence.
“His greatest achievement was that he projected the respected Comrade Kim Jong Un as his successor, the reporter stressed.
“He praised Kim Jong Un for providing the powerful national defense capabilities surely guaranteeing the dignity and sovereignty of the DPRK by creditably carrying forward the cause of the preceding leaders.”
Most Russian ethnic Koreans live in areas, most notably the island of Noktundo, ceded to Russia in the 1860 Treaty of Beijing by the Qing Empire at the end of the second opium war. However these areas were part of Korea and not China’s to give away. Korea was not even a party to the negotiations and to this day the South Korean government formally rejects the legality of the Russian administration of them.
The North Korean government is a bit more reticent and, as far as I know, never said anything formally about the matter. However one has to wonder why it is only members of the Korean diaspora who live in Russia that are concerned with the dignity and sovereignty of the DPRK.
Jonathan Steele in the Guardian seems to suggest Putin wont go any further than Donetz – as that will maintain the ‘frozen conflict’ which will stop Ukraine joining NATO
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/23/putin-narrative-ukraine-master-key-crisis-nato-expansionism-frozen-conflict
Wish I was as confident – but he does seem to suggest that U.S., France and Germany should have done more to encourage Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement, which might have stabilised Ukraine in more of a Finland situation.
I dont think one has to be a ‘leftist’ to wonder whether Biden might be a bit stuck in the tram lines of a cold war mindset and not able to offer some way out for Russia’s oft expressed worries about encirclement and missiles near borders from Gorbachev onward
Agreed
Thats arguably stuck in the Putin mindset.
A couple of minutes with an atlas exposes the ‘Russia being surrounded’ argument as completely spurious. Like the rest of Putins arguments. NATO countries make up a very small part of its borders. Somehow Russian missiles and forces near the border is fine but not the other way around. Even a superficial knowledge of Central European history demonstrates that those Central European countries have an entirely justified fear of a Russia that has brutally invaded and occupied them over decades and centuries. And slaughtered them in Ukraine – read about the famine please. They have been dealing with provocations and attacks (notably cyber) for years. Talk to the Finns and any of the Baltic states. Or the Swedes come to that. Plus Russia has already invaded countries on its Southern borders. Yet its only Russia that is entitled to worry about its security.
As Snyder says, this is about ‘imperial’ ambitions on the part of Putin’s Russia and anyone who claims Leftish beliefs and values ought to be able to see that.
There are 30 countries in NATO. Turkey is partly in Europe but mainly in Asia. We have the US and Canada but the other 27 are European. The thing is that the US is not only 50% bigger than France, Germany and the UK combined , plus it spends more on defence than any other member, and so dominates NATO.
France and Germany didn’t try to lecture Russia or pass judgement -publicly -but did try to negotiate. Sadly Britain usually loyally follows the US . I concede that much depends on Putin’s long term plans but if we had a leadership which valued our European relationships, I wonder if a stronger European voice might have led to a different outcome?
A side note on sanctions, a quick glance at sanctions over the decades, it looks as though the “esteemed leaders” never went without, the average populace however, did.
Richard, I don’t think banning Paulhenry for his comment is very logical. I suspect that the people in Kyiv are not currently having a discussion on Russian imperialism.
With respect, he tried to ban me by telling me what I should not be writing about
It was his second go at breaching the guidelines I’d given
And I have limited time to spend in those who want to waste my time: running this blog consumes a lot of time already
So I made a logical editorial decision whether you think so or not
Here a quite extensive explanation of the situation, what led to the Russian invasion, how it may end, etc. It also covers questions about what NATO can and cannot do, touches on the information and misinformation that is coming out and will come out from all corners.
The author is a military historian and teacher, who writes weekly about topics such as Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, military actions in books and novels…: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/
John Warren
You are right of course about the vagaries of Scottish history – and the same can be said of the history of Ireland and Wales that I have read. And that history is the tendency of ‘their own’ to make life hard for the population as well as their English neighbours (with whom there is usually also some form of collusion or approval) that means that there are winners and losers in that nation. And there is no real intellectual effort required is there to work out which segment of society is it that usually gains? Would it be rigorous enough for you to accept that it always seems to be the wealthiest at the top in Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
And I’m quite sure the English were relieved when they realized that with depopulation in the Highlands, Scotland was much easier manage and exploit if most of its population was centred in the bigger cities?
It also reminds me that it is the elites in nations that we have to watch out for – their ability to ‘work together’ and ape each other’s methods and priorities that is a perennial problem. I suppose its because money rules and the size of your wad renders background, ethnicity and nationality meaning less, whether in 16th, 18th century Scotland or anywhere else for that matter in the modern age.
I think I offer a solid underpinning of why these things happen and why sovereignty and justice can so often be undermined in human history.
In all honesty, I think the complexity leads elsewhere. Power in Scotland remained the fiefdom of a largely independent quasi-feudal elite, in practical terms quite separate (supported by an independent structure of law, and until the mid 18th century even heritable jurisdictions), notably later than its closest neighbours; but at the same time it commited itself to Empire more fully and faster probably than anyone, anywhere (this is simply inadequately recognised); and especially developed by its own analysis that first produced the fundamental working principles of a modern ‘commercial society’. The importance of this for political theory and practice, and the resilience of this impact in every conceivable eventaulity is still not adequately understood (Marx made the mistake of thinking first that he understood it; that he had explored its limits, and had a solution. He failed on all three). This requires a re-framing of our understanding of the history.
The idea that the Union between England and Scotland was ‘freely entered into’ is a bit optimistic. As a parliamentarian said at the time, best to accept what was on offer rather than have something much worse imposed at the point of the sword.
Mr Brown,
You are being ahistorical and optimistically hypothesising. Scots Presbyterians largely had what they wanted from the Gorious Revolution. William’s Dutch Army that delivered it was substantially Scots. His chaplain who blessed the venture on the beach at Torbay in 1688 was the Scots Presbyterian minister William Carstares. There was neither the need nor inclination to invade Scotland, or gratuitously to push satisfied Presbyterians toward the Jacobites. What for? I am struggling even to understand your point.