Putin's Loudest Cheerleaders Have One Thing In Common
The far Right and far Left are doing their best to support Putin and distract the public from his crimes. Why?
by Justin Rosario
As Ukraine enters the third week of Putin’s reckless invasion, we find global opposition to the dictator increasing. The list of corporations cutting ties with Russia continues to grow, including Visa and Mastercard. These last two are particularly painful in a country whose currency, the ruble, is (as of this writing) worth a little less than three quarters of a penny. That is not a typo.
Despite Russia being an international pariah, shunned even by other dictators, Putin is not without cheerleaders, especially in the United States. Naturally, some of this Putin love is coming from the far right. But to the surprise of many, the far left has been extremely vocal in regurgitating Russian talking points.
It’s not really that surprising, though, if you understand the common thread running from the far right to the far left that underlines the fervent support of one Vladimir Putin. But first, let us look at who is (and is no longer) all in on kissing Putin’s ass.
The Republican Party (not so much)
As is his wont, Trump immediately started swooning over Putin’s manliness and brilliance. Elected Republicans, still terrified of being primaried by Trump’s cult, followed suit. For a little while, at least. Fox News excitedly denounced Biden and stood comfortably at the side of Putin as he invaded Ukraine, kicking off the first major war in Europe since WWII.
Once the majority of the world turned on Russia in a very united and concerted way, it became very clear, very quickly, that this was not 2014. In 2014, Russia stole the Crimea Peninsula and suffered only mild consequences. Now, the United States had rallied Europe and most of the planet to levy unprecedented sanctions, waging a form of extreme economic warfare.
Switzerland abandoned its famed neutrality. Germany shipped offensive weapons to a war zone, reversing a policy in place since the end of the second World War. Countries that had resisted joining a weakened NATO and European Union were suddenly reconsidering their positions. Both organizations have found renewed strength in the face of unexpected aggression, quite literally the opposite of what Putin has been working towards these last two decades.
And just like that, the majority of the Republican Party found itself turning away from their Russian benefactors (an awful lot of Russian money seems to find its way into GOP campaigns). With public opinion very firmly against Putin and the midterms coming up, siding with the invaders is a surefire way to lose close elections. Dasvidaniya, comrade.
But not every election will be close and there are plenty of people on the right who don’t have to worry about being elected at all.
White Nationalists
Even as Fox News and the bulk of the GOP declared that we had always been at war with Eastasia and that they had never sided with Putin, America’s far right is still deeply in love with the Russian strongman.
At last weekend’s white nationalist America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), which is an alternative to CPAC for people who think CPAC isn’t racist and militant enough, white nationalists were bellowing their support for Putin. Via The Guardian:
Can we get a round of applause for Russia?” asked Nick Fuentes, on stage last week at a white nationalist event. Amid a roar of applause for the Russian president, just days after he invaded Ukraine, many attendees responded by shouting: “Putin! Putin!”
If you’re not familiar with Nick Fuentes, you should be. He’s the latest Pied Piper for America’s neo-Nazi cancer:
Fuentes is certainly the real deal of white nationalism. He attended the deadly “Unite The Right” rally in 2017 and was recently subpoenaed over his involvement in the pro-Trump insurrection on January 6 2021. He now carries on that effort with AFPAC, aiming to create a kind of far-right archipelago by bringing together white nationalists, fascists and Trumpist crowds talking only to each other in their own islands.
The three-year-old conference sees itself as part enfant terrible, piquing the genteel wing of the Republican party, and part Weimar-era beer hall organizing before the putsch. It is far right, but no longer on the fringe of Republican politics.
But what is it about Putin that so captures the imagination of angry, racist white men? Steve Bannon, another leading figure of American white nationalism, gives us a clue:
"Putin ain't woke. He is anti-woke," Bannon said to private military contractor Erik Prince during the Wednesday broadcast of War Room, Bannon's show on Real America's Voice, a right-leaning media network.
"The Russian people still know which bathroom to use," Prince replied.
"They know how many, how many genders are there in Russia?" Bannon asked.
"Two," Prince answered.
And there it is. The thread tying the American fringe to Russian authoritarianism as opposed to, say, Chinese or Iranian authoritarianism. Putin is not just an autocrat, he’s an anti-woke white autocrat who centers white men!
That last part is key. Putin appeals to the same culture war hate that is the core of the right. His bigotry, intolerance, and willingness to use censorship and force is like pornography for Republican fascists:
And as America and the world grow more diverse, critics say, Russia has come to be seen as a beacon of salvation by white nationalists. In 2004 David Duke, a longtime leader of the Ku Klux Klan, described it as “key to white survival”. In 2017 Ann Coulter, a rightwing author and commentator, opined: “In 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European.”
“European” in this context means “white, male dominated, anti-democratic, and Christian.” This may sound familiar to you?
The right falling to its knees to lick the boots of an authoritarian is nothing new. They’ve been doing that since the beginning of time. But what would motivate the far left to cozy up to a man that is the antithesis of their entire ideology?
As I’ve been trying to explain for a long time now: Exactly the same thing that motivates the far right.
The far left
If you’ve been watching the far left defending Russia’s actions or being “anti-anti-Putin” (a distinction without a difference) over the last two weeks with confusion, you are fundamentally misunderstanding who these people are.
The far left has been gnashing its collective teeth about oligarchs and imperialism for years. Putin, one of the world’s most notorious oligarchs, is waging an explicitly imperialistic war on Ukraine. It’s not like he’s been shy about his ambitions to rebuild the Russian empire. The far left should be foaming at the mouth over this asshole.
Instead, you would be hard-pressed to find a single person of note among the far left who is condemning Putin without immediately shifting the blame to the United States. Or they’re simply skipping the condemnation and getting straight to the blame America part. The Banter’s own Ben Cohen has written about this twice because it’s so galling. And while it is true, as Ben points out, that Greenwald, Taibbi, Weiss, etc. have a business model that does not include holding Putin accountable for his actions, I submit there is a far darker reason for their ongoing love affair with Putin than just selling subscriptions.
Consider, for a moment, why this business model works for them. These are “progressives,” right? They stand against imperialism, oligarchs, war, censorship, etc. So what is their very white, very male audience actually buying if they are selling support for pro-empire, pro-oligarchy, pro-war, pro-censorship Putin? Again, the exact same thing that appeals to the far right: Putin is an anti-woke white autocrat that centers white men. They are selling white grievance and their audience of “progressives” is gobbling it up like hot cakes.
Allow me to take a moment to remind you that the far left spends a great deal of time railing against feminism and identity politics. They consider it a “waste of time” and reserve a great deal of hostility for women politicians:
If the lightbulb hasn’t gone off for you yet, skim through the twitter feeds of a random assortment of people from the far left. The clamor to condemn American imperialism when a Democrat is in the White House is overwhelming. The silence when a Republican president warmongers is just as deafening.
I made this point about drones a few weeks after Biden was elected. The sudden burst of outrage was notable for the total lack of it the four years prior. Trump loosened the rules of engagement, allowing far more civilians to be killed. The far left was too busy to notice. As soon as Biden was elected, though, drones became a huge deal again. If it’s only an issue when a Democrat is president, it’s a cudgel, not a principle.
If you need to see a more current example of this far left double standard, here is Michael Tracey, super progressive. Tracey, like many on the far left, is very much an Accelerationist. The idea being that if things can just get bad enough, ‘The People’ will rise up and overthrow the oligarchs and burn the system down. That was why putting Trump in office wasn’t so bad and electing Democrats is always terrible.
And yet…this concept only seems to apply to the United States:
What? Did Tracey think sanctions and international boycotts were supposed to only make Vladimir Putin and his cohort uncomfortable? At the same time, it does not matter what Russia does, the “West”, usually meaning “America,” is always just as bad:
This is pretty much the entirety of far left social media. Russia is the victim of NATO/American aggression, Russia is wrong but, oh my god!, have you seen how bad America is?!?
Glenn Greenwald, for his part, has really gone all in on the “Russia is the victim” narrative:
No proof, but it sounds good and who needs proof anyway? Also erased in Glenn’s musings on American culpability is Russia’s responsibility for starting the war. That just poofed into thin air because we don’t talk about Putin.
None of this is to say that America is above reproach. The list of stupid/evil/illegal/cruel things this country has done/is currently doing is extremely long. But that is not at all the conversation the far left is having here. If it were, that conversation wouldn’t only target the one political party striving to live up to the agenda the far left claims to have and it certainly would have sharp words for Vladimir Putin.
Yes, Greenwald and Taibbi have subscriptions to sell but they are not selling them to the MAGA crowd. They are selling them to the far left. If the far left wasn’t buying what they were selling, Greenwald and his cohort would have no incentive to keep pushing their MAGA-adjacent trash.
But if the far left is, at its core, animated by white grievance, then everything they’ve said and done over the last two weeks (last several years) makes perfect sense. If they are consuming white grievance garbage and demanding more, why wouldn’t they support Putin, the anti-woke white autocrat who centers white men? He speaks to their need to be seen and heard, something the poor, oppressed white man can’t get in America anymore.
The horseshoe becomes a circle
This is not pleasant to contemplate. We do not want to think the worst about people who are supposed to be on the same side as us. But Republicans used to be on the same side as us as well when it came to foreign adversaries. The only reason they are not standing with Putin is because it would devastate their chances at being reelected. I promise you, if the war is still going on by November, it will take less than 48 hours after voting is done before the bulk of the party switches back to praising Putin’s brilliance. And that will be after eight months of atrocities committed against civilians.
Between now and then, though, the far right and the far left will never, for a second, cease to support Russia, no matter what horrors they inflict. The far right will revel in the cruelty, openly hoping to visit the same on their enemies here. The far left will invent a million excuses to blame anyone except Russia. The thread of white grievance that connects them is all but unbreakable. It shapes their entire worldview, leaving the rest of us trapped between their unthinking rage as they dream of fulfilling Putin’s vision of an America brought to its knees.
Read an excerpt from the latest for Banter Members. Get 50% off a membership today and pay only $1.88/month!:
The Rules Of The Jungle
What playground bullies taught me about the global politics and the rules of war.
by Ben Cohen
Growing up in south London my friends and I experienced a significant amount of violence. From street muggings to assaults (sometimes with weapons) my group of friends stuck together not just for company, but for protection.
The ironclad rule was that if one of us were attacked, then all of us were attacked. This worked as a deterrence to other groups of teenagers who knew that an attack on any of us would have serious consequences. It wasn’t that we wanted violence, but we instinctively knew that we had to send a message to potential predators that we weren’t afraid to use violence if necessary.
The Michaels
In our year at secondary school (high school for you Americans), there was a group of very tough teenagers led by an extremely intelligent but ruthless boy named Michael. Michael came from a very tough family with ties to organized crime and made sure everyone knew about it. To gain his reputation, Michael deliberately picked fights with the toughest kids in school, intimidated potential rivals until they submitted, and relentlessly bullied anyone who defied him. He attained a status at the age of 16 that I now find hard to comprehend. He was feared by everyone — even teachers — while evading any disciplinary action by the school. He got top grades in every subject he took and had extraordinary influence over the faculty that somehow kept him out of all the trouble he instigated.
His crew, known as “The Michaels”, was organized like a military unit, right down to the shaved heads, designer clothing and nauseating aftershave. They took their orders from Michael and delivered his agenda ruthlessly. New boys were humiliated and beaten up if they were deemed to be any sort of threat. Vicious fights outside of school were organized, often for money, to see who “could have it” the best. Targets were selected for intimidation and made to understand they had to submit or face a campaign of terror. Often non-threatening boys were humiliated too, just to be made an example out of.
My group of friends were not violent and were quite well liked in our year group. Some of us were even friendly with The Michaels — all of whom were not too unpleasant by themselves. I was actually on good terms with Michael himself (he weirdly had a very generous and loyal side too), and we often played sports together or went out at weekends without issue. At school we largely co-existed peacefully. The Michaels didn’t fear us, but they knew we wouldn’t submit to their bullying. Every now and then, a fight would be proposed between one of our group and one of theirs. This would be done to gauge our willingness to fight back. Michael once suggested I fight his friend Mark to “see who’s the hardest”. I declined, telling both Michael and Mark that I was offended and that I thought we were friends. “If you start one though, I’ll fight back,” I told them plainly.
That was enough to keep the peace, at least for then.
This is an excerpt from today’s Members Only essay. You can get 50% off a Banter Membership today and continue reading here.
You guys keep calling these idiots far left. Thats a category error, or better put, a mischaracterization. They aren't far left, they are what you correctly stated in your roundtable: hipster, anti-Left. I break this down into two subsets: the nihilists/absurdists that, like its Dune, hooked on the insanity for money. They dont represent progressiveness. There are also overt communists, cheering on what believe will be the prophesized revolt of the workers. Just like with libertarian nuttiness, this will never happen, and they can retreat, no matter what, into bemoaning what could have been, the missed utopia. There are some here that are tolerable, as long as they are promoting something and its clear comedy like, say, Chapo. But there are many who have revealed themselves to be ok with suthortarianism if they think it leads to the promised land.
These people aren't progressives. They have revealed they don't believe in the system, and believe it to be beyond reform. Progressivism is sometimes called the far left. This is why this term, the far left, is so problematic to me. There are better words for them. These people are not of a kind with AOC, Bernie, or Omar. These later believe in systemic reform, not systemic destruction and replacement. The "baddies" here are much more like the former diseffected Trotskyites who became Neo Con. This moment has been revelatory. And revelation requires reidentification. So can you guys stop using that term Far Left. Call them what they really are: nihilistic Fash Friendlies.
There is one orher issue. I mention it not to destroy enthusiasm in the Ds like the motivated nihlists I mention it as a lover of my country, my home. The issue is reflected in your articles and your talking. It is the unspoken premise that the Ds are right. I think that thinking spawns two factors: you guys aren't hurting as bad as others are (an admitted guess) , and you believe the hype, not the record. I have yet to see anything critical of the Ds here. especially about whether they are acheiving their stated agenda. This is bad. Not because, as may be your fear, such criticism would fuel the insane right. Its bad because you fail to realize other peoples issues are valid, issues that need to be addressed. And thats a recipe for loss. Thats a recipe for endless griping about this or that reason, this or that or who blame (voter fraud is a key exception). Its, therefore, a recipe for grievence and stabbed-in-the back meraphors that make you feel good when you lose because your candidate/party has drifted so far away from what normal people want.
You blast the unfair failure of Bidens economic success to garner electoral recognition. My question is, how is the average voter experience this. What have you done for them? Things they can identify as on brand, that you can campaign on. If you dont have much, if all you can run on is aspirations that dont reach results (Damn that Manchin!) , you will lose because why should you win? What have you done for the common man, specifically, not generally. Nobody cares that infrastructure got done in so far as the common man doesnt know the Democrats did that. Still doesnt help them feed their family or make their life better.
So people will turn toward others because the results arent there. And no amount of scaremongering is going to motivate people. You need to win people over. Thats democracy.
Sadly, people tend to turn to fascism when they are suffering, and make no mistake, the current system has left many suffering by design. Ds can change that, have vision. But they have acted like the old center Rs for most of my life. I want that to change in time not to have us fall to fascism, because people will move to fascism because fascism makes the trains run on time. All kinds of horror comes with that, but the undenible fact is fascism often gets things done, as much as they terrorize and oppress. I could go on, but my question is: are you willing to autopsy the issues that will garner support? Will you advocate the Ds change to acheive success? Because it could still happen, but that has to happen. Real change for the people. Things that may go against the funders, that will be uncomfortable for the status quo while being being absolutely neccessary? Because it will do little to whine later. Unless your sole contribution is being a defense squad, eternal apologists, no better in this way than those southerners who yearn for their world that can never be again because America is different place and Americans are no longed antebellum minded?