At a time in which those in the US on the nominal left—Democrats, ostensibly, but even those who fancy themselves “progressive” or “leftist”--seems to be onboard with a course of action in Ukraine that has brought us closer to the brink of nuclear conflict than at anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fact that nobody seems motivated to examine exactly what put us in this position seems almost criminally negligent.
It should go without saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was both illegal (inasmuch as laws that are neither acknowledged nor particularly respected by any superpower can truly have any validity) and abominable, and the number of innocent Ukrainians lost to this conflict over the last eight years has quickly reached the level of “human rights atrocity” we usually associate in places like Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, Libya, or other locations whenever US mainstream media feels like dignifying those situations by mentioning them. That said, the fact that said media seems to have painted this conflict in two-dimensional, Marvel Cinematic Universe-esque terms—the plucky freedom fighters led by the charismatic Volodymyr Zelenskyy versus the evil, imperialistic Russians and their Fearless Leader/avatar, Vladimir Putin—articulates a sinister reality that would be amusingly shallow if it weren’t simultaneously putting us closer to nuclear conflict and suppressing any critical analysis of the situation.
Indeed, any suggestion that the conflict in Ukraine might not be the neat, good-vs.-evil conflict we’re supposed to think it is gets either suppressed outright or accused of supporting Putin.
In an era defined by our access to—or saturation with—information, it’s incongruous at best (and terrifying at worst) that people in this country have become increasingly defined solely by the scope of their informational lens. Our ability to transmit, receive, and process information has advanced light-years from the welcome cacophony of 56k modems to the Star Trek tech in our purses and pockets, yet even with the sum totality of human knowledge literally at our fingertips, we seem incapable of seeing how narrow our vision has become.
Even a cursory google search reveals some disturbing connections in Ukraine. A key figure in this conflict is Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and likely someone very few people in the United States have heard of.
The granddaughter of a Ukrainian immigrant, Nuland cut her teeth in the Clinton Administration before resurfacing in 2003 as a deputy foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, with whom she played a crucial role in the Iraq War. She later became US Ambassador to NATO, where her primary job was to drum up support in Europe for the war in Afghanistan. She stuck around under Obama in various positions, most crucially as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. It was in this capacity that Nuland came closest to any fame, during the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, in which a taped phone call between her and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt leaked that featured the two discussing how the the Ukrainian government would be restructured.
Nuland would step away from government work during the Trump Administration, serving as CEO of the Center for a New American Security, a public policy think thank specifically concerned with US geopolitical military interests, only to return during the Biden Administration and accidentally admit to Congress that the whole “Ukrainian bio-weapons labs” rumor was not, in fact, Russian propaganda, but very much real.
Most curiously—and most damning—Nuland’s husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative think tanks the Project for the New American Century and the Foreign Policy Initiative.
In 1979, British cultural theorist Stuart Hall astutely observed “Fascism and economic recession seem to render transparent those connections which most of the time are opaque, hidden and displaced.” Hall, of course, was referring to the National Front and other fascist groups operating in Britain; however, his words echo eerily to the present-day US.
Hammered by a pandemic-exacerbated economic downturn, the connections become vividly clear to anyone paying attention. It isn’t coincidence that the same figure who was an advisor on the Iraq War, worked in the State Department during our regime change efforts in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria, and told Congress that there was “no doubt in [her] mind” Russia will use chemical or biological weapons, also happens to be the wife of one of the most prominent neoconservatives in the country.
The fact that such a person has had a succession of high-ranking positions in our government should be the dead giveaway that neoliberals and neoconservatives have taken advantage of the ever-rightward shift of the Overton Window in US politics. Decades of Third Way, “middle-ground,” concession politics from people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have exploited the language, iconography, and identity politics of US progressivism to Astro-turf their tacit—and, sometimes, overt—approval of neoconservative policies. From NAFTA to TARP, from Libya and Syria to Ukraine and, possibly, Iran, it’s obvious that, when liberals talk about “bipartisanship,” the fetishized “middle ground” to which they refer is the Democratic Party itself.
Even that wouldn’t be so bothersome if it didn’t have us on the brink of nuclear war.
It should go without saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was both illegal (inasmuch as laws that are neither acknowledged nor particularly respected by any superpower can truly have any validity) and abominable, and the number of innocent Ukrainians lost to this conflict over the last eight years has quickly reached the level of “human rights atrocity” we usually associate in places like Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, Libya, or other locations whenever US mainstream media feels like dignifying those situations by mentioning them. That said, the fact that said media seems to have painted this conflict in two-dimensional, Marvel Cinematic Universe-esque terms—the plucky freedom fighters led by the charismatic Volodymyr Zelenskyy versus the evil, imperialistic Russians and their Fearless Leader/avatar, Vladimir Putin—articulates a sinister reality that would be amusingly shallow if it weren’t simultaneously putting us closer to nuclear conflict and suppressing any critical analysis of the situation.
Indeed, any suggestion that the conflict in Ukraine might not be the neat, good-vs.-evil conflict we’re supposed to think it is gets either suppressed outright or accused of supporting Putin.
In an era defined by our access to—or saturation with—information, it’s incongruous at best (and terrifying at worst) that people in this country have become increasingly defined solely by the scope of their informational lens. Our ability to transmit, receive, and process information has advanced light-years from the welcome cacophony of 56k modems to the Star Trek tech in our purses and pockets, yet even with the sum totality of human knowledge literally at our fingertips, we seem incapable of seeing how narrow our vision has become.
Even a cursory google search reveals some disturbing connections in Ukraine. A key figure in this conflict is Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and likely someone very few people in the United States have heard of.
The granddaughter of a Ukrainian immigrant, Nuland cut her teeth in the Clinton Administration before resurfacing in 2003 as a deputy foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, with whom she played a crucial role in the Iraq War. She later became US Ambassador to NATO, where her primary job was to drum up support in Europe for the war in Afghanistan. She stuck around under Obama in various positions, most crucially as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. It was in this capacity that Nuland came closest to any fame, during the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, in which a taped phone call between her and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt leaked that featured the two discussing how the the Ukrainian government would be restructured.
Nuland would step away from government work during the Trump Administration, serving as CEO of the Center for a New American Security, a public policy think thank specifically concerned with US geopolitical military interests, only to return during the Biden Administration and accidentally admit to Congress that the whole “Ukrainian bio-weapons labs” rumor was not, in fact, Russian propaganda, but very much real.
Most curiously—and most damning—Nuland’s husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative think tanks the Project for the New American Century and the Foreign Policy Initiative.
In 1979, British cultural theorist Stuart Hall astutely observed “Fascism and economic recession seem to render transparent those connections which most of the time are opaque, hidden and displaced.” Hall, of course, was referring to the National Front and other fascist groups operating in Britain; however, his words echo eerily to the present-day US.
Hammered by a pandemic-exacerbated economic downturn, the connections become vividly clear to anyone paying attention. It isn’t coincidence that the same figure who was an advisor on the Iraq War, worked in the State Department during our regime change efforts in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria, and told Congress that there was “no doubt in [her] mind” Russia will use chemical or biological weapons, also happens to be the wife of one of the most prominent neoconservatives in the country.
The fact that such a person has had a succession of high-ranking positions in our government should be the dead giveaway that neoliberals and neoconservatives have taken advantage of the ever-rightward shift of the Overton Window in US politics. Decades of Third Way, “middle-ground,” concession politics from people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have exploited the language, iconography, and identity politics of US progressivism to Astro-turf their tacit—and, sometimes, overt—approval of neoconservative policies. From NAFTA to TARP, from Libya and Syria to Ukraine and, possibly, Iran, it’s obvious that, when liberals talk about “bipartisanship,” the fetishized “middle ground” to which they refer is the Democratic Party itself.
Even that wouldn’t be so bothersome if it didn’t have us on the brink of nuclear war.
Comments
Post a Comment