A LEFTIST PLEA FOR NEW IMPERIALIST INTERVENTIONS

Comrades,

This weekend is the last opportunity to take advantage of a flash sale.

Yearly subscriptions are priced at just $25.00. 

That’s less than three dollars a month for all my writing.

Your subscriptions keep this page going, so if you have the means, and believe in paying for good writing, please do consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The first two lines of the Ukrainian anthem are: “Ukrainian freedom has not yet perished, nor has her glory / Upon us, Ukrainian brothers, fate shall smile once more.” (The term “dolya” is not fate in the sense of predetermination, but more in the sense of a contingent lot, as in the poem “Dolya” by the Ukrainian classic Taras Shevchenko.) In the last weeks, especially after Russia started a new offensive north of Kharkiv, it is more and more becoming clear that fate is no longer smiling on Ukraine – so what are we do to when Ukraine is in such a predicament?

First, who is the “we” here? Europeans? The last Eurovision spectacle displayed all the misery of what Europe is becoming – the political background was the only thing of minimal interest that happened in Malmo. Consequently, the entire event (inclusive of its “democratic” voting to choose the winner) deserves to perish in a bonfire of the vanities. The winning Swiss song celebrated the trans-experience of “breaking the code” of binary sexuality – would it not be much more radical to break some political binary codes? Is the couple of liberal democracy and new populism really the ultimate horizon of our political imagination? The Europe “united by music” in Malmo fully belongs to the series of decadent choices described by Aleksandr Dugin: it all began with late medieval nominalism followed by Protestantism (which reduces religion to an individual’s experience of god); then comes the disintegration of empires into nation states, and the further disintegration of nation states into groups to which individuals can choose to belong (religious minorities, etc.); finally, sexual identity itself becomes a matter of an individual’s choice which can even be actualized through surgery. At the end of this road is the choice of remaining human or assuming a post-human identity – culturally, we find ourselves in Malmo, confronted with ridiculous pseudo-choices.

This story is, of course, outrageously one-sided: it ignores the misery of daily life in premodern times as well as the great progress that modernity brought, not just towards individualism but, much more importantly, towards new forms of free collective organizations, from universities to trade unions. The core of Enlightenment is not individualism but what Kant (and we just celebrated the 300^th anniversary of his birth) called the public use of reason. When Paul, the true founder of Christianity, says that, from a Christian standpoint,  “there are no men and women, no Jews and Greeks,”  he thereby claims that ethnic roots, national identity, etc., are not a category of truth, or, to put it in precise Kantian terms, when we reflect upon out ethnic roots, we engage in a private use of reason, constrained by contingent dogmatic presuppositions, i.e., we act as “immature”  individuals, not as free human beings who dwell in the dimension of the universality of reason. The public space of the “world-civil-society” designates the paradox of the universal singularity, of a singular subject who, in a kind of short-circuit, by-passing the mediation of the particular, directly participates in the Universal. This is what Kant, in the famous passage of his “What is Enlightenment?”, means by “public” as opposed to “private”: “private” is not one’s individual as opposed to communal ties, but the very communal-institutional order of one’s particular identification; while “public” is the trans-national universality of the exercise of one’s Reason:

“The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of one’s reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one’s reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him.”[1]

One participates in the universal dimension of the “public” sphere precisely as a singular individual extracted from or even opposed to one’s substantial communal identification – one is truly universal only when radically singular, in the interstices of communal identities. In his vision of the public space of the unconstrained free exercise of Reason, he asserts the dimension of emancipatory universality outside the confines of one’s social identity, of one’s position within the order of (social) being. In clear contrast to this stance, Dugin claims – in a clear postmodern way - that there is a Russian truth, a Western European truth, etc., each grounded in a specific people’s community.

The authentic public use of reason is now gradually disappearing – the way Europe deals with Ukraine and Gaza war is a model of the private use of reason. Fortunately, moments of public use of reason still emerge here and there, as in the protests against the Gaza genocide. Recently, in a supreme act of civil courage, even a large group of Israeli Jewish intellectuals called the EU states to recognize Palestine – here is their message worth quoting in full:

“Israeli public figures call on the remaining EU Member States, the UK, and other states to recognize the State of Palestine without delay (7 May 2024) In the wake of the brutal Hamas massacre on 7 October and Israel’s ensuing destruction of lives and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, we, Israelis committed to the democratic future of the two peoples, are convinced that the international community must take clear action toward the realization of the two-state solution. Recognition of the State of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations would be an important step along this road. The recognition of a Palestinian state is a matter of principle and historic justice. It is also a way to bring back a chance for quiet in this war-torn region. Such a significant diplomatic endeavor would remove the ambiguity that had tainted the entire “peace process” from its inception, put diplomacy back on track, and force the parties to the conflict, as well as the main international actors, to meet their responsibilities. In this regard, we welcome reports that Spain, Ireland, Malta, and Slovenia intend to soon announce their recognition of the State of Palestine and to support its full membership in the United Nations. We call on the remaining EU Member States, the UK, and other states to follow suit as an important step toward achieving the two-state solution. This war must not become yet another chapter in the long history of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. There is no better way to restore faith in diplomacy than recognizing the State of Palestine now.

Prof. Elie Barnavi, former Israeli Ambassador to France; Ilan Baruch, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe; Michael Ben-Yair, former Attorney General of Israel; former Acting Supreme Court Judge; Avraham Burg​, former Speaker of Knesset; former Head of the Jewish Agency; Prof. ​Naomi Chazan​, former Deputy Speaker of Knesset; Prof. ​Itzhak Galnoor​, former Head of the Israeli Civil Service Commission; Zehava Galon​, former Member of Knesset; former Chair of Meretz Party; Prof. Oded Goldreich, Israel Prize Recipient  2021); Prof. Moty Heiblum, EMET Prize Recipient (2014); Prof. Eva Illouz, former President of Bezalel Academy of Art and Design; Prof. Miki Kratsman, EMET Prize Laureate (2011); Alex Levac, Israel Prize Recipient (2005); Dr. Alon Liel, former Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; former Ambassador to South Africa and Turkey; Prof. ​Kobi Metzer​, former President of the Open University of Israel; Prof. Yoram Peri, former Political Advisor to Yitzchak Rabin; Mossi Raz​, former Member of Knesset; Prof. Sarah Stroumsa, former Rector of the Hebrew University”

These are the true heroes of our time, and it is no surprise that our big media ignore this message. With Ukraine, the situation appears more muddled, the public use of reason is very rarely practiced. So how does it stand with Ukraine now? Not just on the battlefield, but above all among the millions behind the frontlines. The reality of Ukraine outside the news from the battlefront is best depicted by Sergei Loznitsa’s Invasion, an over two hours long documentary which had its premiere at 2024 Cannes festival. The movie just presents aspects of daily life, from funerals and marriages where the new husband will have to go to the front immediately, to distribution of food and school classes under the permanent threat of bombing. One should point out the painfully-slow depiction of how a big bookstore collects books in Russian and then packs them and deliver them to be pulped – the scene is presented with pointed neutrality which clearly signals Loznitsa’s unease… There are no dramatic climaxes in the film, no scene with Zelensky or other big names – the message of the film resides in its very slow oppressive rhythm. (We should not forget that Loznitsa made the film from Vilnius, sending people to Ukraine to shoot the scenes: Ukrainian nationalists are mad at him - if he enters Ukraine he will not be allowed to exit.)

So how are we to act in this depressive situation? We should above all avoid the false “public use of reason” which advises neutrality and the search for peace through negotiations. The most disgusting thing to do at this moment is to repeat with triumph the old motif “we were telling you for years that Ukraine cannot win…” – obviously true, but whatever the final outcome will be, Ukraine achieved an unexpected miracle in resisting Russia for such a long time. Another stupidity is the idea that the Ukrainian war is just a moment of the conflict between Russia and NATO, with thousands of Ukrainians sacrificed to the NATO interests to weaken Russia. Are Ukrainians really so stupid to play this role while they could have enjoyed peace? What peace? Russian occupation which would annihilate them as a nation… This is why the alternative “peace through negotiations or war” is a false one: Ukraine will be in a position to negotiate only if it will remain strong enough to present a real obstacle to Russian invasion.

In such a predicament, the only serious option is to finally accept that we are entering a global emergency state: we are at war and only a full Western commitment can give Ukraine a chance. The same holds for Gaza - here again only the US military intervention can save things. Not long ago a picture circulated from inside Gaza showing smoke billowing from the explosion of a US-supplied bomb, and discernible in the background was the outline of eight black parachutes dropping US aid in precisely the same neighborhood.[2] This photo renders perfectly the opportunism of the US politics: supplying the arms to bomb Gaza and then helping the people whose lives were ruined by these same bombs – this is what humanitarian help means today.

The US has been humiliated again and again. As crazy as this may sound, the fact that the US are no longer able to act as a global superpower also has its bad aspects - history repeats itself, just recall the US army’s withdrawal from north Syria to protect the Kurds, as well as the premature withdrawal from Afghanistan. As I already suggested in a recent text of mine, ideally the US (with some allies) should simply invade Gaza from the sea, establish its own power zone there where millions of civilian refugees will be safe, providing for their elementary welfare and in this way constrain Israeli power - it is a safe bet that Israel would not risk an open conflict with the US. In crazy times, crazy acts are needed. Before you dismiss this idea as madness, think realistically what would happen! It would be a great relief for millions of starved and bombed civilians. Similarly, one should take the risk to raise the Ukrainian war to a higher level, setting clear red lines that Russia should not overrun. One should, of course, proceed very carefully not to provoke a global war – but, again, the only way to prevent a new global war is to take calculated risks now.

Will something like this happen? The one thing one can rely on is that the US regularly miss the opportunity to use (whatever remains of) its global imperialist power for a good cause.

---

[1] Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?,” in  Isaac Kramnick, The Portable Enlightenment Reader, New York: Penguin Books 1995, p. 5.

[2] The new world disorder: how the Gaza war disrupted international relations | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian.