Welcome to the desert of the real. Zizek Goads and Prods has been up and running for four months. My political writing is free, as is most of my philosophical and jokey pieces. 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.
“if Ukraine falls, this would give incentive to Russia to go on to conquest other countries.”
Incentive to conquest other countries? _What_ incentive? If Russia were to achieve its goals and achieve its security, this would then somehow “incentivize” it to want to take Warsaw, Berlin, Paris?
I have seen NO EVIDENCE for this claim, trotted out as regularly as it is. Russia does not want NATO butting up against it. It’s been quite clear on this for some time now. This is not unreasonable and is in line with what other world powers would feel compelled to prevent, by force if necessary.
Yes, the utter foolishness of the West has likely “emboldened” Russia. It does not follow that they are now, or ever were, bent on conquering Europe.
If we in the West took into account the reasonable demands of other nations (or, indeed, assisted in good faith in the implementation of accords such as Minsk I/II) we would all be living in a much more peaceful world.
…
Quite surprised to hear this line from Zizek, but I know he enjoys being the contrarian
While it was always CIA bullshit propaganda that the Soviet Union or Russia would march across Europe but for NATO, or that they even had such a desire or capability, it is not really in doubt that Russia would likely take over other border states in the name of its "security" following the Ukraine. I would say Poland or at least a region of Poland bordering Russia would be in danger of being annexed if we allow the annexation of the Ukraine or large parts of it.
I suggest you read up on the history of Russia. Russia is in a highly insecure position geographically and has been conquered many times, thus they tend to push their borders outwards as far as possible (particularly into Eastern Europe).
Eastern European countries join NATO precisely because for all its flaws, NATO is still by far preferable to domination by Russia.
Ukraine falling to Russia would place Russia right on the border with NATO, meaning the USA and other nato members would need to spend a lot of money deterring any further advance westward (particularly into the Baltic states or Poland), thus is by far the more logical option to help Ukraine block Russia now.
What would lead you to believe they're not in a vulnerable position? They historically have been interested in expanding borders for one reason or another, be it Peter the Great conquering the baltic states, Catherine the great swallowing up parts of Poland, Ukraine itself having a very similar relationship now as it did then with the prevailing ruling groups in their respective periods (Tsarist and Soviet). My point is that are you simply taking the Official Stance, as you seem to be portraying it,
"Russia does not want NATO butting up against it. It’s been quite clear on this for some time now."
as the official double-speak stance that it perhaps is, for the more real stance which is Russian expansion of an Anti-Nato coalition and any surface contact of this NATO expansion is in a sense, a denigration of Russian or Putin authoritarian power?
I dont know how you can read through the last 300 years of Russian history, see the actions of the Russian state, and then assume that they are simply anti NATO and that is the end of it.
Putin himself stated at the onset of the war, in 2014 that “Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other" What is not expansionist about this claim? His idea of a "Russia" is predicated on a fabricated history was built upon an idea of a Russian empire that was, and no longer is. That "was" was a loosely defined grouping of many smaller, what I will call, city-states. If his idea is based off some form of collective identity or ethnicity, then by that argument we should be giving Crimea back to the Tartars.
Pope Francis is correct. There is no possible way for Ukraine to defeat Russia. When an army is defeated, Christian morality requires that the defeated army should not continue to throw away the lives of its men. The Yanks have led Ukraine down the path of total destruction - and the rest of Europe isn't far behind. As Henry Kissinger famously said - To be America's enemy is dangerous. To be America's friend can be lethal.
> Today, many of those on the “Left” who pretend to advocate a more “balanced” (i.e., pro-Russian) view of the Ukrainian war repeat again and again that the main cause of the continuing bloodshed is NATO’s military support of Ukraine which boosts the profits of the military-industrial complex… There is an element of truth in this claim: yes, without NATO’s support, peace would soon be established there because Ukraine would be forced to capitulate. For this very reason, we could paraphrase Churchill apropos NATO: NATO is the worst possible thing for Europe, but all alternatives to it are much worse.
I guess this paraphrased Churchill never considered what the past leftists, before the European left became totally commodified, stupid, and shilling for expationism would trivially consider:
That Ukraine should just have left their neighbor alone, as opposed to becoming a pawn in NATO's plans to surround them and install bases and missiles targetting its borders. Especially since that has been a clearly communicated line in the sand for decades, not to mention a promise made and broken.
Or that a huge Cold War millitaristic vehicle for hegemony is not some benevolent protector, but an agressor with its own agenda who does not give a fuck about them, and would laugh and profit as they die to fulfil its cause (to turn their neighbor into a vassal state to use against China and plunder its resources like they did in the years after 1991), and to help destroy Europe's economy by killing its cheaper energy options to profit itself.
Or that having an orange revolution topple the previous government and give power to ultra-nationalists (including bona-fide WWII Nazi sympathizers) and pro-NATO shills maybe wasn't the best idea.
And that, if you have a big population of a different ethnic origin in your country, it's best not to prop up nationalist fervor in favor of the other half, deny their language, and target them.
But that was a left from back when there was a left. Now it's pop "philosophers".
Zizek's latest post starts with a formal fallacy in the very first sentence i.e. asserting that "balanced" means "pro-Russian" rather than 'pro-factual'. Goes on to trot out some tired old cliche from the '70's about "military industrial complex" (yes, that is still a 'thing', but the 'actual' big thing now is reaction to de-dollarisation, multi-polarity and BRICS).
Left wing commentators appearing on Right wing channels and vice-versa is a popular trend right now. Peter Hitchens has beeen interviewed on Novara by Aaron Bastani a couple of times, and Bastani has been interviewed on "Triggernometry". This format of necessity requires the participants to 'play nicely' and agree to disagree on certain points then move on. Zizek's performance of late has been simple capitulation. Zizek has found his 'happy place' down in the mire with neocon war-hawks like Piers Morgan and 'Times Radio' on YT. Apparently they love him - certainly their commentators mostly do- they are cock-a-hoop at having found a real, live, academic and intellectual bedfellow- and I daresay they can afford him a far larger platform than Neutrality Studies ever could, though the calibre of NS's guests is second-to-none.
To be honest, I think the much-married Zizek has fallen in love again, but this time it's with his all-new audience from the Right-wing news channels that have made him their darling. He is suffering from a bad case of 'new relationship energy'. This can only end badly- rather like the rich old man that spurns his loyal old wife for a young women who turns out to be a 'gold-digger'. As they say, "there's no fool like an old fool".
Dear Comrade Slavoj, I have been reading your books and watching your lectures for many years now and I have learned a great deal from you. Your bizarre support for a genocidal murder gang like NATO is shocking and disappointing to me. How could all our your learning come to such an unfortunate conclusion? Today, we have slave markets in the streets of Libya because of NATO. The Rape of Libya destabilized all of Northern and Western Africa and caused one of the worst migration crisis in all of history, with countless people being drowned trying to escape the horror that NATO unleashed - while countless more have been kidnapped, trafficked and sold into slavery. NATO attempted to do the same to Syria. The same gang raped and murdered Iraq, and it is these criminals who supply the bombs to murder children in Palestine. And what is your reasoning? That while NATO may be bad - at least they're not Russia?
Let's not forget that Western Europe is US occupied territory - along with most of Eastern Europe since 1990. The likes of Macron and Scholz are not national leaders, but local satraps or viceroys of the Empire. They do not think in terms of what's good for their peoples, but what extends and promotes the Empire. The war in Ukraine and the Genocide in Palestine have exposed them as people who don't even know how to think. They loyally await instruction and guidelines from the US State Department. This has led them into the most grotesque defeat and humiliation in Ukraine - and has actually put Germany back in the dock for War Crimes and Genocide at the International Court of Justice.
The most important thing to remember is that NATO is the USA plus its defeated and castrated running dogs. The USA is all that really matters. The castrated and defeated running dogs are just along for the ride.
Actually, most people on the Left correctly state that there would be no war in Ukraine today without reckless and aggressive NATO expansion eastwards. If Ukraine had stayed a neutral country and not made itself the mindless running dog of US Imperialism, none of this would be happening. The New York Times admits that the CIA had set up several bases in Eastern Ukraine that have been perpetrating black ops within Russia for years. Do you really imagine Russia was going to sit on her hands and allow this behaviour?
I stopped reading after the first line. What left? I’m with Norman Finkelstein and the US November options, we have crackpot realist, for who there is no other solution but war including nuclear, and certified lunatic, which“renders rational calculations ... questionable and may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’.”
Suggesting that Russia is interested in invading other countries is nonsense. The Ukraine has always been part of Russia. It's people either speak Russian or a dialect of Russian. They are the same Slavic people with the same religion and culture. Ukraine can never be ripped from the bosom of Mother Russia. That will never, ever, happen. Likewise, Taiwan is part of China. When China takes Taiwan back, that will not imply that China is going to invade the rest of the world.
You seem to forget that NATO raped Yugoslavia, then went on to rape Libya, and attempted to rape Syria. Support for NATO is support for serial mass rape.
Is Bassem not engaging in a kind of "surplus jouissance" in its ephemeral emancipatory potential?
Slavoj brings up an example from Brecht of two people singing about woes, which ends with a "SJ" moment. Ive always found it can go either way, every circumstance can only be retroactively read (the difference between your bitter uncle laughing in a chair over the 'wounds he wont let heal' and what bassem is doing here)
Is even saying "emancipatory potential" too far? If we are here does this not mean that all satire and everything else has broken down? that all we have left is "singifier + SJ excess"? When meaning is evacuated totally and SJ is all thats left? Does it matter then if you are the father and daughter from the Brecht song or Bassem?
To be clear his reaction is my own reaction, but it, again, makes one wonder about if theres any use to this SJ or if it just marks, signposts, the breakdown of meaning in general.
now it is jesus fault that they kill him?.. if you asking christs they gonna say that christ wasn't a fool.. but indeed many of them are.. true believers .. but the truth is not a belief.. it is in the word.. not out there somewhere from where you have to translate it back into words.. i am going so far to call some christs wise .. including some jesus wisdoms i heard from..
this i wrote to one who calls me an 'subliterary fool' here on substack saying hamas started the war..
it is not that one dimensional.. and even if it is like you say .. no reason to kill innocent ppl.. religiously nationalisticly motivated war terror .. and how easy it was for hamas to make such terror ..mossad had no idea.. as easy as the twintowers crashed down.. cia didn't know.. war always was the way to nationalize people into nazis.. israel wasn't always led by fascists.. see the movie ‘vice'.. batman played nice bushs vicewife.. same like trump and netanjahu etc.. long time ago since albert einstein warned the ppl of the rightwing israelic religious extremists.. sadly it is the stockholmsyndrome of some of the not-victims of the holocaost..
it is just necessary to be an unnationalist whichs thinking is loted by the quality of the truth.. it is all not yours or mine maybe jesus said..
“if Ukraine falls, this would give incentive to Russia to go on to conquest other countries.”
Incentive to conquest other countries? _What_ incentive? If Russia were to achieve its goals and achieve its security, this would then somehow “incentivize” it to want to take Warsaw, Berlin, Paris?
I have seen NO EVIDENCE for this claim, trotted out as regularly as it is. Russia does not want NATO butting up against it. It’s been quite clear on this for some time now. This is not unreasonable and is in line with what other world powers would feel compelled to prevent, by force if necessary.
Yes, the utter foolishness of the West has likely “emboldened” Russia. It does not follow that they are now, or ever were, bent on conquering Europe.
If we in the West took into account the reasonable demands of other nations (or, indeed, assisted in good faith in the implementation of accords such as Minsk I/II) we would all be living in a much more peaceful world.
…
Quite surprised to hear this line from Zizek, but I know he enjoys being the contrarian
While it was always CIA bullshit propaganda that the Soviet Union or Russia would march across Europe but for NATO, or that they even had such a desire or capability, it is not really in doubt that Russia would likely take over other border states in the name of its "security" following the Ukraine. I would say Poland or at least a region of Poland bordering Russia would be in danger of being annexed if we allow the annexation of the Ukraine or large parts of it.
I suggest you read up on the history of Russia. Russia is in a highly insecure position geographically and has been conquered many times, thus they tend to push their borders outwards as far as possible (particularly into Eastern Europe).
Eastern European countries join NATO precisely because for all its flaws, NATO is still by far preferable to domination by Russia.
Ukraine falling to Russia would place Russia right on the border with NATO, meaning the USA and other nato members would need to spend a lot of money deterring any further advance westward (particularly into the Baltic states or Poland), thus is by far the more logical option to help Ukraine block Russia now.
Based on your first paragraph I don’t think I need any history lessons from you pal
What would lead you to believe they're not in a vulnerable position? They historically have been interested in expanding borders for one reason or another, be it Peter the Great conquering the baltic states, Catherine the great swallowing up parts of Poland, Ukraine itself having a very similar relationship now as it did then with the prevailing ruling groups in their respective periods (Tsarist and Soviet). My point is that are you simply taking the Official Stance, as you seem to be portraying it,
"Russia does not want NATO butting up against it. It’s been quite clear on this for some time now."
as the official double-speak stance that it perhaps is, for the more real stance which is Russian expansion of an Anti-Nato coalition and any surface contact of this NATO expansion is in a sense, a denigration of Russian or Putin authoritarian power?
I dont know how you can read through the last 300 years of Russian history, see the actions of the Russian state, and then assume that they are simply anti NATO and that is the end of it.
Putin himself stated at the onset of the war, in 2014 that “Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other" What is not expansionist about this claim? His idea of a "Russia" is predicated on a fabricated history was built upon an idea of a Russian empire that was, and no longer is. That "was" was a loosely defined grouping of many smaller, what I will call, city-states. If his idea is based off some form of collective identity or ethnicity, then by that argument we should be giving Crimea back to the Tartars.
but if ukraine falls the 'west' influence there falls too.. i like a true sensefull mix..
Pope Francis is correct. There is no possible way for Ukraine to defeat Russia. When an army is defeated, Christian morality requires that the defeated army should not continue to throw away the lives of its men. The Yanks have led Ukraine down the path of total destruction - and the rest of Europe isn't far behind. As Henry Kissinger famously said - To be America's enemy is dangerous. To be America's friend can be lethal.
> Today, many of those on the “Left” who pretend to advocate a more “balanced” (i.e., pro-Russian) view of the Ukrainian war repeat again and again that the main cause of the continuing bloodshed is NATO’s military support of Ukraine which boosts the profits of the military-industrial complex… There is an element of truth in this claim: yes, without NATO’s support, peace would soon be established there because Ukraine would be forced to capitulate. For this very reason, we could paraphrase Churchill apropos NATO: NATO is the worst possible thing for Europe, but all alternatives to it are much worse.
I guess this paraphrased Churchill never considered what the past leftists, before the European left became totally commodified, stupid, and shilling for expationism would trivially consider:
That Ukraine should just have left their neighbor alone, as opposed to becoming a pawn in NATO's plans to surround them and install bases and missiles targetting its borders. Especially since that has been a clearly communicated line in the sand for decades, not to mention a promise made and broken.
Or that a huge Cold War millitaristic vehicle for hegemony is not some benevolent protector, but an agressor with its own agenda who does not give a fuck about them, and would laugh and profit as they die to fulfil its cause (to turn their neighbor into a vassal state to use against China and plunder its resources like they did in the years after 1991), and to help destroy Europe's economy by killing its cheaper energy options to profit itself.
Or that having an orange revolution topple the previous government and give power to ultra-nationalists (including bona-fide WWII Nazi sympathizers) and pro-NATO shills maybe wasn't the best idea.
And that, if you have a big population of a different ethnic origin in your country, it's best not to prop up nationalist fervor in favor of the other half, deny their language, and target them.
But that was a left from back when there was a left. Now it's pop "philosophers".
Zizek's latest post starts with a formal fallacy in the very first sentence i.e. asserting that "balanced" means "pro-Russian" rather than 'pro-factual'. Goes on to trot out some tired old cliche from the '70's about "military industrial complex" (yes, that is still a 'thing', but the 'actual' big thing now is reaction to de-dollarisation, multi-polarity and BRICS).
Left wing commentators appearing on Right wing channels and vice-versa is a popular trend right now. Peter Hitchens has beeen interviewed on Novara by Aaron Bastani a couple of times, and Bastani has been interviewed on "Triggernometry". This format of necessity requires the participants to 'play nicely' and agree to disagree on certain points then move on. Zizek's performance of late has been simple capitulation. Zizek has found his 'happy place' down in the mire with neocon war-hawks like Piers Morgan and 'Times Radio' on YT. Apparently they love him - certainly their commentators mostly do- they are cock-a-hoop at having found a real, live, academic and intellectual bedfellow- and I daresay they can afford him a far larger platform than Neutrality Studies ever could, though the calibre of NS's guests is second-to-none.
To be honest, I think the much-married Zizek has fallen in love again, but this time it's with his all-new audience from the Right-wing news channels that have made him their darling. He is suffering from a bad case of 'new relationship energy'. This can only end badly- rather like the rich old man that spurns his loyal old wife for a young women who turns out to be a 'gold-digger'. As they say, "there's no fool like an old fool".
Dear Comrade Slavoj, I have been reading your books and watching your lectures for many years now and I have learned a great deal from you. Your bizarre support for a genocidal murder gang like NATO is shocking and disappointing to me. How could all our your learning come to such an unfortunate conclusion? Today, we have slave markets in the streets of Libya because of NATO. The Rape of Libya destabilized all of Northern and Western Africa and caused one of the worst migration crisis in all of history, with countless people being drowned trying to escape the horror that NATO unleashed - while countless more have been kidnapped, trafficked and sold into slavery. NATO attempted to do the same to Syria. The same gang raped and murdered Iraq, and it is these criminals who supply the bombs to murder children in Palestine. And what is your reasoning? That while NATO may be bad - at least they're not Russia?
Let's not forget that Western Europe is US occupied territory - along with most of Eastern Europe since 1990. The likes of Macron and Scholz are not national leaders, but local satraps or viceroys of the Empire. They do not think in terms of what's good for their peoples, but what extends and promotes the Empire. The war in Ukraine and the Genocide in Palestine have exposed them as people who don't even know how to think. They loyally await instruction and guidelines from the US State Department. This has led them into the most grotesque defeat and humiliation in Ukraine - and has actually put Germany back in the dock for War Crimes and Genocide at the International Court of Justice.
The most important thing to remember is that NATO is the USA plus its defeated and castrated running dogs. The USA is all that really matters. The castrated and defeated running dogs are just along for the ride.
Actually, most people on the Left correctly state that there would be no war in Ukraine today without reckless and aggressive NATO expansion eastwards. If Ukraine had stayed a neutral country and not made itself the mindless running dog of US Imperialism, none of this would be happening. The New York Times admits that the CIA had set up several bases in Eastern Ukraine that have been perpetrating black ops within Russia for years. Do you really imagine Russia was going to sit on her hands and allow this behaviour?
I stopped reading after the first line. What left? I’m with Norman Finkelstein and the US November options, we have crackpot realist, for who there is no other solution but war including nuclear, and certified lunatic, which“renders rational calculations ... questionable and may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’.”
Suggesting that Russia is interested in invading other countries is nonsense. The Ukraine has always been part of Russia. It's people either speak Russian or a dialect of Russian. They are the same Slavic people with the same religion and culture. Ukraine can never be ripped from the bosom of Mother Russia. That will never, ever, happen. Likewise, Taiwan is part of China. When China takes Taiwan back, that will not imply that China is going to invade the rest of the world.
You seem to forget that NATO raped Yugoslavia, then went on to rape Libya, and attempted to rape Syria. Support for NATO is support for serial mass rape.
To whomever:
Is Bassem not engaging in a kind of "surplus jouissance" in its ephemeral emancipatory potential?
Slavoj brings up an example from Brecht of two people singing about woes, which ends with a "SJ" moment. Ive always found it can go either way, every circumstance can only be retroactively read (the difference between your bitter uncle laughing in a chair over the 'wounds he wont let heal' and what bassem is doing here)
Is even saying "emancipatory potential" too far? If we are here does this not mean that all satire and everything else has broken down? that all we have left is "singifier + SJ excess"? When meaning is evacuated totally and SJ is all thats left? Does it matter then if you are the father and daughter from the Brecht song or Bassem?
To be clear his reaction is my own reaction, but it, again, makes one wonder about if theres any use to this SJ or if it just marks, signposts, the breakdown of meaning in general.
now it is jesus fault that they kill him?.. if you asking christs they gonna say that christ wasn't a fool.. but indeed many of them are.. true believers .. but the truth is not a belief.. it is in the word.. not out there somewhere from where you have to translate it back into words.. i am going so far to call some christs wise .. including some jesus wisdoms i heard from..
this i wrote to one who calls me an 'subliterary fool' here on substack saying hamas started the war..
it is not that one dimensional.. and even if it is like you say .. no reason to kill innocent ppl.. religiously nationalisticly motivated war terror .. and how easy it was for hamas to make such terror ..mossad had no idea.. as easy as the twintowers crashed down.. cia didn't know.. war always was the way to nationalize people into nazis.. israel wasn't always led by fascists.. see the movie ‘vice'.. batman played nice bushs vicewife.. same like trump and netanjahu etc.. long time ago since albert einstein warned the ppl of the rightwing israelic religious extremists.. sadly it is the stockholmsyndrome of some of the not-victims of the holocaost..
it is just necessary to be an unnationalist whichs thinking is loted by the quality of the truth.. it is all not yours or mine maybe jesus said..