By Cain Burdeau, Courthouse News Service, 8/3/22

To explain the horrific events taking place in Ukraine, a chilling narrative about Russia being a fascist state run by “the dictator” Vladimir Putin has taken hold in the West.

The problem is many experts on Russia’s politics say it’s a false or misleading rendering of why Ukraine is engulfed in war.

This narrative goes this way: Just like Adolf Hitler, Putin is advancing a blood-thirsty, imperialistic, nationalistic and revanchist ideology to build a greater “Russian world” and it’s up to the West to stop him and save democracy.

In Ukraine, and increasingly in the West too, Russians are decried as “Ruscists” (a term merging Russians and fascists), Putin is demonized as “Putler,” Russian troops are called “orcs” and Russia is the “Land of Mordor,” the fictional land of dark evil forces in J.R.R. Tolkien’s books.

But this damnation that Russia is a new fascist power intent on world domination is not just false but dangerously inflaming a war that poses the risk of escalating into a world war, according to experts who study Russia and Putin’s regime.

“Since the mid-2000s, accusing Russia of being fascist has become a central narrative among Central and Eastern European countries, as well as among some Western policy figures,” wrote Marlene Laruelle, a French scholar and Russia expert at George Washington University. She is the author of the 2021 book “Is Russia Fascist? Unraveling Propaganda East and West.”

Among those who have accused Russia of fascism are Hillary Clinton, Prince Charles, Polish-American diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, prominent Yale historian Timothy Snyder and a number of Putin’s political rivals, including Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess master and political activist.

It’s a thesis reinforced at the highest levels with U.S. President Joe Biden calling Putin a “butcher” and “war criminal” who must be removed from power. Politicians in Europe too routinely make the Hitler-Putin comparison.

In April, after French President Emmanuel Macron talked about the need to negotiate with Putin, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki shot back: “One should not negotiate with criminals, one should fight them … Nobody negotiated with Hitler. Would you negotiate with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot?”

The Putin-Hitler comparisons are promoted by magazines, newspapers and television news channels that regularly feature images of Putin looking deviously evil.

Nicolai Petro, a Russia expert at the University of Rhode Island, said using the fascist label “is commonly used to insult, rather than to illuminate.”

“There is no serious political project or party associated with the ‘Russian World’ in Russia today,” he said in an email to Courthouse News.

“This accusation performs the simple role of reducing Russia to being Other than the West, embodying everything that is not desirable for the West,” Laruelle wrote in an essay before the invasion. “If ‘Putin is Hitler,’ as some profess, who would want to negotiate with him and try to rebuild a constructive dialogue with Russia?”

In a more recent essay, she argued that using the fascist and Nazi label against Russia is “an easy, intellectually lazy way to make Putin understandable and predictable” and that it “does more to obscure than to shed light on our range of policy options for ending the conflict.”

Of course, those who accuse Putin’s Russia of being a fascist state have ample evidence to draw from.

Exhibit A: Hundreds of people defined as political prisoners – among them high-profile political figures such as Alexei Navalny – languish in Russian penal colonies. Since Putin ordered a full-scale attack on Ukraine, police have cracked down on anti-war protests. Recently, a councilor in a Moscow district, Alexei Gorinov, was sentenced to seven years for opposing the war.

Exhibit B: Since rising from obscurity to power in 1999, Putin has turned Russia into what many experts regard as a one-party authoritarian state with himself as the strongman on top. Putin is accused of overseeing a crooked system where his political and business allies have become fabulously wealthy through corruption.

Exhibit C: The Kremlin is a bastion of illiberal rhetoric infused by traditionalism, nationalism and militarism that represses dissenters who challenge the Kremlin’s politics, such as the closing of Russia’s most prominent human rights group Memorial International last December.

Critics point to Putin and his inner circle citing the works of Ivan Ilyin, a right-wing Russian nationalist scholar who left Soviet Russia in 1922 and later lauded fascist leaders, and Alexander Dugin, a contemporary Russian philosopher dubbed “Putin’s brain” by the Western press. Dugin’s writings create a disturbing worldview where an expansionist Russia leads the fight against Western liberalism.

Snyder, the historian at Yale, crystallized the arguments of those who see Putin as Hitler in an opinion piece for the New York Times in May entitled, “We Should Say It. Russia Is Fascist.”

“People disagree, often vehemently, over what constitutes fascism,” Snyder wrote. “But today’s Russia meets most of the criteria that scholars tend to apply. It has a cult around a single leader, Vladimir Putin. It has a cult of the dead, organized around World War II. It has a myth of a past golden age of imperial greatness, to be restored by a war of healing violence – the murderous war on Ukraine.”

Snyder said Putin, like Hitler, must be defeated.

“A time traveler from the 1930s would have no difficulty identifying the Putin regime as fascist. The symbol Z, the rallies, the propaganda, the war as a cleansing act of violence and the death pits around Ukrainian towns make it all very plain,” he wrote.

“The fascist leader has to be defeated, which means that those who oppose fascism have to do what is necessary to defeat him,” Snyder concluded. “Only then do the myths come crashing down.”

Volodymyr Ishchenko, a Ukrainian political sociologist at the Free University in Berlin, said the fascist label being lobbed by both sides in the Ukraine war “has become completely discredited.”

While those in Ukraine and the West accuse Russia of fascism, Moscow too churns out propaganda alleging Kyiv’s government of being run by Western-backed Ukrainian “Nazis” determined to destroy Russia.

“It’s almost the most important legitimization for the war: That Russia is legitimately fighting Nazis in Ukraine,” Ischenko said in a telephone interview.

“One of the things that is strikingly different between Russia and classical fascist regimes is the actual lack of any ideological mobilization,” he said.

Unlike Nazi Germany or fascist Italy, he said post-Soviet nations like Russia lacked a “totalizing ideology.”

In Hitler’s Germany, the fascist ideology was embodied by the National Socialist Party with its millions of party members and the SS and the Hitler Youth (the Hitlerjugend), vast paramilitary and youth organizations.

Those elements, Ischenko said, were the “fundamentals of the real fascists” and “nothing like this existed” in Putin’s Russia.

That was the case before the Ukraine invasion. But what about now?

“With the invasion, the Russian political regime starts to take some of the elements that may turn Russia into something more similar to fascism,” he said. “Would it develop into some kind of new fascism – or fascism of the 21st century?”

He said it’s conceivable Russia could evolve into a fascist state centered on mobilizing Russians around an ideology and turn into a real “pro-Putin movement.”

“That is quite possible,” he said, “and that would make the Russian political regime stronger in contrast to that paternal authoritarianism which has dominated post-Soviet politics for the past 30 years.”

Laruelle agreed that the Ukraine war may move Russia toward fascism.

“It is a danger. I think it has been moving toward that with the war,” she said in a telephone interview.

She said the rhetoric from some Russian elites, which she called the “party of war,” is now very close to what she would call fascist.

However, she added in her recent paper that the “party of hawks shouldn’t become the tree hiding the forest” and that much of Russia’s elite are “uninterested in ideology” and that the hawks “should not be read as the position of the whole state.”

She said a fascist state is best characterized as one that advocates its rebirth through violence and relies on the “heavy mobilization of the population” around a “cult of war.”

Until now, she said Putin has only openly expressed ideas that could be called fascist during a March 16 speech where he talked about Russia’s “self-purification” from “scums and traitors” to make the country “stronger.”

But she said Russian authorities “do not celebrate war, but on the contrary hide it and have even passed a law that condemns those talking about a ‘war’ and not a ‘special military operation’ to up to 15 years in prison.”

She added that the regime is trying “to avoid actual military mobilization, as a large-scale draft of young men would force a recognition that the ‘operation’ is indeed a ‘war’ and could jeopardize the Russian people’s passive consensus around the regime’s ‘special operation.’”

Until now, Russians have not shown to be fanatical about the war, for example with rallies and parades, and attempts to force society to show its support for the war “have been manufactured in a pretty poor, Soviet-inspired manner,” Laruelle wrote.

“Moreover, while youth support is a central component of any fascist regime, in Russia, the youth are the most unreliable part of the population from the regime’s point of view, and the least supportive of the war,” she argued.

She cited surveys of Russians that find most people see the conflict “as a geopolitical struggle with the West” and that there is not any “particular enthusiasm for the more cultural, political, and genocidal aims of liquidating Ukraine’s statehood and nationhood.”

But with the war at danger of becoming prolonged and Russia facing ever more difficulties, Laruelle warned the Russian regime “has a real risk of shifting toward this kind of mobilization of society, and this totally utopian vision of the future.”

She wrote that a rise in paramilitary groups inside Russia – which have been cultivated by Putin’s regime – “would constitute compelling evidence that the Russian state apparatus is becoming fascist.”

*You can read Marlene Laruelle’s recent in depth academic article, “So, Is Russia Fascist Yet?” here. Purchase is required. (Spoiler alert – the answer is still no.) – Natylie

By Margarita Lyutova. Abridged translation by Sam Breazeale, Meduza, 8/10/22

In late July, a team of researchers from Yale published a report titled “Business Retreats and Sanctions Are Crippling the Russian Economy.” Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the same team has maintained a list of international companies that have ceased operations in Russia in response to the war. The project is led by management and corporate responsibility expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management and the founder of Yale’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute. The report has been cited widely in recent weeks, but Sonnenfeld is neither an economist nor a Russia specialist, and experts have raised doubts about some of the report’s claims. Economic journalist Margarita Lyutova explains why the researchers’ conclusions might be worth taking with a grain of salt.

Apples to oranges

In early March, soon after the start of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, international corporations start withdrawing from Russia en masse. Some cited ethical reasons, while others pointed to new logistical difficulties resulting from Russia’s sudden economic isolation. On March 6, Yale Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and a team of researchers that included his students published a list of 200 companies that had already announced they would either cease or limit their operations in Russia.

A second list, published alongside the first, contained 30 companies that had “remained in Russia with significant exposure.” But the authors’ analysis raised questions. A graph that was meant to compare the companies’ varying levels of involvement in the Russian economy used different data points for different companies: in some cases, it showed the number of branches or franchisees a company still had in Russia, while in others, it showed the total percentage of the company’s revenue that could be attributed to its operations in Russia. Still other companies were marked with notes saying their level of involvement in the Russian economy had “not [been] disclosed,” despite the fact that several of those companies publish public reports online that could have been used to assess their presence in Russia. The authors also didn’t explain why they had chosen these specific companies out of all of the international companies that remained in Russia.

On March 7, two companies on the “remained in Russia” list — EY (Ernst & Young) and Procter & Gamble — announced they were pulling out of the Russian market. Shortly after, Sonnenfeld began telling journalists that his list had been responsible for many companies’ departure from Russia, though he didn’t give specific examples. On March 11, the Washington Post published an article in which Sonnenfeld said that “over two dozen” companies had requested to be added to the list in a single day.

On July 22, Sonnenfeld and his coauthors published a report on the consequences of sanctions and the exodus of companies from Russia on the academic paper repository SSRN (formerly the Social Science Research Network). In the weeks since it was published, the report has had a huge impact: according to SSRN, it’s been downloaded over 66,000 times. A number of media outlets, including the Financial Times, CNBC, and Deutsche Welle, have cited it.

But even a cursory glance at the report raises some questions about its reliability. SSRN is intended to be a platform for academic articles, but the Yale report falls short of academic standards. For one thing, it’s missing a list of references, an appendix with data used by the authors, and a methods section, which would allow other researchers to assess its validity.

The claims made in the report are far-reaching. Its authors assert that “Russian domestic production has come to a complete standstill with no capacity to replace lost businesses, products and talent,” and that “there is no path out of economic oblivion for Russia as long as the allied countries remain unified in maintaining and increasing sanctions pressure against Russia.” Claims that economic sanctions are ineffective, they say, are unfounded.

The paper is based on both the authors’ own list of companies that withdrew from Russia and an analysis of statistics regarding the Russian economy. The authors estimate that “as a result of the business retreat, Russia has lost companies representing ~40 percent of its GDP,” but don’t explain what time period they used to calculate this figure or whether they took into account the businesses that sold their assets to Russian companies.

Additionally, the current version of the list includes only 311 companies that have left Russia completely; another 500, the authors say, have left temporarily and retained the ability to return. Nonetheless, they refer to the economic damage done by the withdrawal of “over 1,000” companies.

The report contains other contradictions that don’t take an economics degree to spot. At one point, for example, the authors write that Putin’s reckless wartime economic policy decisions have “sent his government budget into deficit for the first time in years.” Later in the report, though, they include a table that shows that Russia had a deficit in both 2020 and in 2017.

Those pesky local factors

According to Alexander Isakov, the head of ​​Bloomberg’s economics team, Sonnenfeld and his colleagues also failed to take into account some important factors that are specific to Russia. For example, citing data from Rosstat, the authors write that even official statistics from the first quarter of 2022 indicate a major downturn in a number of sectors of the Russian economy when compared to those from 2021: they calculate a 62 percent decline in the construction sector, a 55 percent decline in the agriculture sector, and a 25 percent decline in the manufacturing sector.

The authors note that the data doesn’t take into account seasonal factors, but according to Isakov, seasonality can’t be discounted: indicators from each year’s first quarter are always significantly lower than those of the preceding year’s last quarter. This is due to a combination of the holiday season (which includes fewer workdays), Russia’s climate (which affects construction), and the fact that there’s no harvest in the winter. When all of this is taken into account, Russia actually showed a small GDP increase of 0.5 percent in the year’s first quarter, then a decline in the second quarter.

Isakov was clear that his goal was not to disparage Sonnenfeld and his colleagues; he was simply pointing out their errors in an effort to get closer to the truth. “Understanding conditions on the ground in [Russia] is more important than ever,” he concluded, “and [the] report is a commendable effort to do just that.”

Don’t worry, @CBSNews, I saved it for you. https://t.co/XIUkXjqMSw pic.twitter.com/wbe0fdngJH

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) August 8, 2022

Flooding a country with advanced weapons can have grave consequences, even when done with the best of intentions. This CBS Reports documentary goes inside Ukraine to get a firsthand look at how military aid gets from the border to frontline soldiers, and explores the difficulties of getting the aid to the fighters who need it. – August 4, 2022

CBS News removed this documentary from its website a few days after first posting it. It can still be viewed in full at this site. – Natylie

Link here.

By Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Substack, 8/14/22

Yes, it would be simpler and less messy all around if we just transferred the money directly from our bank accounts to Raytheon, Lockheed and the rest of them.

From New Atlas, today Brian Berletic:

Even according to a pro-Ukrainian map, there is no evidence of much change on the round, no evidence of any kind of Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south while in the east the Russians continue to make incremental advances (as we have seen consistently in reports from Mercouris).

A Pentagon briefing of August 8 talks of another draw-down package, the 18th, this one worth $1 billion. This is the value of equipment they take out of army stocks, send to Ukraine, and then immediately replace – providing huge windfall profits for arms manufacturers.

This 18th package includes additional ammunition for the HIMARS, but they don’t say how many of these there still are, nor how much ammunition they are sending (suggesting it isn’t very much). They are not sending any more HIMARS launchers, so the total currently provided remains 16. About half of those have been destroyed by Russia. They are sending 75,000 artillery rounds including, probably, for the M777s: this is just two days’ worth at the rate that Russia fires. Munitions for air defense systems are sometimes sent ahead of launchers so just sending stuff doesn’t mean it is usable when it arrives. The US is not sending the best possible but only the ones they can easily (repair/replace – meaning not clear0. These include 1000 javelin missiles, A24 missiles, medical treatment vehicles and other medical supplies.

There is little to no evidence these systems are stopping Russia.

An interesting Fort Benning paper, cited by Berletic, talks about highly trained professional US soldiers having trouble with some of these advanced weapons like the Javelin. Apart from failures to hit intended targets, the data showed that of 27 engagements observed only 19% were effective – even without considering the amount of damage they inflicted. Effectiveness is generally low, sometimes because even trained soldiers miscalculate: e.g. some of these missiles need to travel a certain distance before they become active, so as to protect the positions of those who are detonating. Therefore (even trained) soldiers often don’t understand the specifics of the weapons. The problems with untrained soldiers, who don’t know how to operate them, even how to turn them on in some cases, and who sometimes dependent on the manufacturer instructions they are reading on the internet for the first time. In the US, troops need practice, and they have to practice out in the field. This is something that it utterly impossible for Ukraine to organize. If the effectiveness rate is 19% in the case of well-trained US soldiers, then clearly the rate is going to be much worse for Ukraine. And sometimes different weapons are needed for different ranges suggesting the need for diversity of provision and flexibility of skill in using them.

In such circumstances, the USA sending, say, 1000 javelin missiles is not a matter of helping Ukraine, it is an exercise in arms profiteering. $9.8 billion worth so far. As Ukraine loses the battle, they need different weapons. Now the laughable claim is that the Ukrainians are waiting upon a weapons delivery that will allow them to enact their counteroffensive in Kherson. Their soldiers are in trenches, nowhere to hide, their “advance” stalled, and the villages that they are supposed to have recaptured never named. Soldiers and advisors talking about the Kherson offensive are cited anonymously in western newspapers. There is simply no evidence that Ukraine has the ability for such an offensive. It admits losing 100 to 200 soldiers a day, while the Pentagon continues to waffle on about troop morale and more than “40 million Ukrainians” fighting for the existential survival of their country.

The Pentagon claims the Russians have suffered 80,000 casualties and that the Russian military has been doing badly. They are certaintly not suffering casualties at the rate of Ukraine. Since their main mode of battle is long range artillery it is not clear how they could be losing troops at the rate claimed by the Pentagon. The reality is that their losses are far lower (as other western claims have already indicated, perhaps as low as 5,000). The Russian military is not running out of anything, while Ukrainians are running out of everything. The Pentagon claims Russia has lost 3,000 to 4,000 armored vehicles, presumably as a result of Ukrainian missile systems. But since Ukrainians cannot possibly fire these systems effectively, as we have just discussed, then this number of losses of Russian vehicles is simply unbelievable. Simple propaganda. It totally contradicts the reality that Russia continues to advance, and Ukraine continues to lose.

The Pentagon narrative also ignores the efforts by Russia to restore to relative normality the areas they are taking over, often liberating them from the Azov-style battalions of the Ukrainian armed forces that were sent to suppress pro-Russian populations in places like Kherson and Kharkiv after the US-backed coup d’etat in 2014, sometimes torturing and killing those who resisted. Russians will of course suppress terrorists or saboteurs in the territories they have recovered for the people’s republics.

Berletic references various other Pentagon lies including the claim that Russia tried to capture Kiev in February (it was much more likely to have been a shock tactic and a diversion, successfully encouraging Ukraine to deploy its forces over a wider area instead of being concentrated in the Donbass). In the meantime, so much weaponry has been sent to Ukraine, that many of NATO armies are now lacking in their own weaponry as they await replacements. They are relatively unprotected, therefore. Quite an extraordinary outcome.

The Pentagon briefing references the Pelosi visit to Taiwan which was a complete violation of the One China Policy and international law. Pentagon presumptions of impunity are an expression of faith in US exceptionalism.

The Pentagon indulges its usual claims about the “wonder weapon”, the HIMARS (actually just an unarmored truck with launchers at the back, not difficult to locate and destroy). The precision-guided 200 pound warheads they carry, the Pentagon claims, are so impactful that they have slowed Russia down. So if is such a great weapon, why then has the US sent only 16 (not even a full battery, some of which, possibly 8, have already been destroyed by Russia, despite Pentagon denials to the contrary), and only about 100 missiles? (The Brits have sent one or two comparable systems, and Germany has promised a few which have not yet arrived).

These quantities are ridiculously insufficient in contrast to what is available to Russia. Russia has comparable and even better multiple rocket launch systems in the use of which their troops are better trained, in addition to having proper aviation support, cruise missiles, Iskanders etc.

If Ukraine is depending on HIMARS, it is bound to lose. The fact that the HIMARS are being sent at all is a result of the fact that Russia destroyed Ukraine’s heavy weapons systems earlier on in the conflict. Ukraine also had an air-force at the beginning of the conflict, but Russia destroyed it. Why isnt the USA providing it F16s? Well, it takes time to train pilots – one to two years. And if the USA starts sending F16s to Ukraine and Russia shoots them down, then we get photos of F16 smoldering on the ground, which might provide the right PR optics for Lockheed. A similar logic may be at work behind reluctance to send more HIMARS to Ukraine. Better for Lockheed to have other countries (like the Czech Republic) send their existing fighter planes and armory and then after these have been destroyed, Lockheed can begin replacing them, knowing it will take a year or so for fighter pilots to be properly trained.

The situation vis-a-vis Ukraine is very similar to that which pertained in the US occupation of Afghanistan – a constant process of buying of time, even as the Taliban reconquered the country, while everyone (the MICIMATT) makes a fortune (except for most Afghans, of course and most Americans) pretending to fight a real war.

On other issues, Berletic refers to western media reports of the recent explosion in Crimea, asserting that it was a Ukrainian attack, when even Kiev denies responsibility. Western media keep claiming that Russia is firing at itself (!!) at the Zaporizhizhia nuclear power plant, when it is clear that it must be Ukraine that is shelling the power plant that is held by Russia, a measure of Ukrainian desperation. As for claims that Ukraine has destroyed the road and rail bridges to Kherson, not only is the truth of this not fully established, but why would it matter given that Russia has other options. More importantly, how would the taking out of bridges help Ukraine launch an offensive to retake Kherson?! Western media narratives are becoming more disjointed, contradictory and desperate (on behalf of Ukraine and NATO).

Should Ukraine simply sign over sovereignty to Russia? Well, Ukraine already signed over sovereignty, but to the USA, in 2014. The current war serves Washington interests, not Ukrainian.