正在学习

Against False Peace and for Regional Solidarity

When the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused the U.S. and NATO of “direct involvement in the Ukraine war,” the West’s answer should have been: There is only one foreign country directly involved in the Ukraine war, and it is Russia, which is why Ukraine has the full right to strike inside Russia. The sad thing is that the U.S. seems to obey a limitation imposed by Russia: “[The] U.S. secretly altered HIMARS rockets it gave Ukraine so they couldn’t be fired into Russia.”30 But on December 6, 2022, it was reported that Ukrainian forces had used drones to strike two air bases hundreds of miles into Russian territory, prompting military commentators to admit that Zelensky’s forces could have managed to cross over the border.31 “Russia fears Moscow is under attack”—Ukrainians don’t have to fear, Kyiv is under permanent rocket attack. Putin warns that anyone attacking Moscow will be “wiped out,”32 while Russian forces are already wiping out not only Kyiv, but Ukraine’s entire infrastructure.

Ukraine is now the victim of a new type of war. The battlefield is more or less stable, but Russia is systematically destroying the civilian infrastructure of the entire country. Russian playwright Anton Chekhov wrote: “Any idiot can face crisis; it’s this day-to-day living that wears you out.” His remark is appropriate for the Ukrainian war. Ukraine is becoming like Palestine. Palestinian painter Sliman Mansour said that ordinary daily life for Palestinians is political, part of political-military struggle.33 The same politicization of daily life goes on in Iran—what is more ordinary than wearing a scarf or not? And in Ukraine, what is more ordinary than to turn on electricity or fill a glass with water from a pipe?

But what is even more morbid is that Russia’s brutality is the idea of some “Leftist” peaceniks who think now is the time to send a big European delegation to Russia to inquire and negotiate about the terms of peace. We, the authentic Left, should do everything possible to prevent a new world war, beginning with a ruthlessly realist evaluation of what Russia is today. We should abandon Eurasian stupidity, i.e., the idea that only a pact between Europe and Russia could bring about a new power bloc that would in turn enable Europe to avoid the fate of being a minor partner of the U.S. in the forthcoming conflict with China. At this point, Russia is simply more dangerous than China. Russia wants Europe to pressure Ukraine to accept a compromise with Russia, so the West should not negotiate with them, but also shouldn’t ignore the people in Russia who oppose the war. In this regard, Ukrainian leadership is making a mistake.

Polish journalist Sławomir Sierakowski noticed that “an alliance between the Ukrainian administration and the Belarusian opposition therefore seems natural. Unfortunately, nothing of the kind has emerged … Consider the reaction from Mykhailo Podolyak, an important adviser to Zelensky, following news that this year’s Nobel Peace Prize would be shared by the Belarusian human-rights advocate Ales Bialiatski, the Russian NGO Memorial, and the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties. He tweeted: ‘Nobel Committee has an interesting understanding of word “peace” if representatives of two countries that attacked a third one receive @NobelPrize together. Neither Russian nor Belarusian organizations were able to organize resistance to the war.’”34 As Sierakowski points out, this is not only morally wrong but also politically stupid. Russian opponents of the war are called traitors by Putin’s establishment, and Russians by Ukraine, which leaves them in a strange predicament. In this way, the meaning of the Ukrainian war is obfuscated. It is not a struggle between “European truth” and “Russian truth,” as both Dugin and some Ukrainians claim; it is a case of the global struggle against the new nationalist fundamentalism which is gaining strength everywhere, in Russia and in the U.S., in India and in China. If there is anywhere that Ukrainians have ceded a sliver of moral high ground, it is here, not in any Dionysian dissipation outside Kyiv.

练习题

According to the author, which foreign country is directly involved in the Ukraine war in the decisive sense?

A. The United States, because it supplies weapons to Ukraine

B. NATO as a whole, because Russia says it is directly involved

C. Russia, because it invaded and wages war against Ukraine

D. China, because it is the main rival of the United States

What does the author criticize about the U.S. handling of HIMARS rockets supplied to Ukraine?

A. The U.S. refused to provide Ukraine with any rocket systems at all.

B. The U.S. secretly altered the rockets so they could not be fired into Russia.

C. The U.S. required Ukraine to use HIMARS only against civilian infrastructure.

D. The U.S. gave HIMARS rockets only to Russia, not to Ukraine.

Which comparison does the author use to explain the politicization of ordinary daily life in Ukraine?

A. Ukraine is compared to Switzerland because daily life remains neutral and apolitical.

B. Ukraine is compared to Palestine, where ordinary daily life is part of political struggle.

C. Ukraine is compared to China because economic growth continues despite war.

D. Ukraine is compared to NATO because military strategy replaces civilian life entirely.

Which statements accurately reflect the author’s position on negotiations, Russia, and antiwar opposition? Select all correct answers.

A. The West should not pressure Ukraine into accepting Russia’s desired compromise.

B. The West should ignore all Russians because every Russian supports the war.

C. The West should avoid negotiations that serve Russia’s goal of forcing compromise on Ukraine.

D. Antiwar voices inside Russia should not be ignored.

E. A realist evaluation of contemporary Russia is necessary to prevent a broader war.

Which claims match the author’s critique of Eurasianist strategy and nationalist fundamentalism? Select all correct answers.

A. The author rejects the idea that Europe should form a power bloc with Russia to avoid dependence on the U.S.

B. The author says Russia is, at this point, more dangerous than China.

C. The author frames the Ukraine war as a simple conflict between pure European truth and pure Russian truth.

D. The author interprets the war as part of a global struggle against nationalist fundamentalism.

E. The author endorses Dugin’s view that the war is a clash between European truth and Russian truth.

The author presents Russia’s destruction of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as a central feature of a new type of war, even though the battlefield is described as more or less stable.

The author agrees with Mykhailo Podolyak’s dismissal of Russian and Belarusian antiwar organizations as morally correct and politically wise.

The author says Europe should abandon “Eurasian stupidity,” meaning the idea that only a pact between Europe and ___ could create a new power bloc independent of the U.S.

How does the author connect Ukraine’s right to strike inside Russia with the claim about direct foreign involvement in the war?

Explain why the author thinks supporting Russian and Belarusian antiwar voices is politically important, even while opposing negotiations that reward Russia.

Which interpretation best integrates the author’s current claim about Ukraine’s right to strike inside Russia with the earlier discussion of Russia’s annexation claims?

A. Because Russia claimed occupied Ukrainian territories as protected Russian territory, the author argues Ukraine lost the right to fight there.

B. Because Russia is the only foreign country directly involved in the war, the author argues Ukraine has the right to strike inside Russia, while earlier Russian annexation claims tried to redefine occupied Ukrainian land as protected Russian territory.

C. Because the U.S. altered HIMARS rockets, the author concludes Russia was not directly involved in the war.

D. Because Russia labeled Ukraine a hypersect, the author argues negotiations should replace Ukrainian military action.

Which statements correctly connect the author’s current argument about nationalist fundamentalism with earlier examples of Russian ideological rhetoric?

A. The current section rejects the idea that the war is simply a struggle between “European truth” and “Russian truth.”

B. The earlier section’s references to “Satanists,” “desatanization,” and Putin as a religious warrior illustrate the kind of fundamentalist framing the current section warns against.

C. The author’s current argument says that Russian antiwar voices should be ignored because they are part of nationalist fundamentalism.

D. The earlier section presents Russian discriminatory laws against same-sex “propaganda” as connected to a broader traditionalist and fundamentalist politics.

E. The current section says nationalist fundamentalism exists only in Russia and nowhere else.

The author’s current criticism of “Leftist” peaceniks who want negotiations with Russia is consistent with the earlier metaphor of a “castrative operation” understood as international isolation rather than literal violence.

How does the author’s description of politicized daily life in Ukraine relate to the earlier account of Ukrainians organizing a mass orgy in response to nuclear threat?

登录后解锁笔记、知识点解析、AI 问答

立即登录