The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Video of Marshall University Online Talk on "Putin's Western Supporters"
In the presentation I explain why Putin's regime appeals to these people, and how they compare with Western sympathizers with the USSR during the Cold War.
Marshall University recently posted the video of my online talk on "Putin's Western Supporters," which is part of their weekly series of panels and lectures related to Russia's war against Ukraine.
In the presentation, I distinguish between Westerners who like and admire Putin's regime from those I call "anti-anti-Putinists," a term inspired by Cold War-era anti-anti-communists. I also explain why Cold War-era Western sympathizers with the Soviet Union were overwhelmingly on the political left, while Putin's Western supporters are mostly on the political right. Whereas the USSR's appeal was tied to that of egalitarian socialism and communism, Putin's Russia promotes nationalism and social conservatism. Finally, I discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of Putin's regime in the international war of ideas, and what can be done to counter it. Some of the points made relate to issues addressed in my recent National Affairs article, "The Case Against Nationalism" (coauthored with Alex Nowrasteh).
Here's the video:
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"I also explain why Cold War-era Western sympathizers with the Soviet Union were overwhelmingly on the political left, while Putin's Western supporters are mostly on the political right"
Hear that, kooks? He's talking about all you GQP bigots here. Is owning the libs really worth the treachery?
Well, it wouldn't be if it were true.
Certainly the strongman-loving right have moved to Orban since admiring Putin has become less popular.
I think anyone who follows the news even in passing knows that it is true. Trump and MAGA are the pro-Putin voices in America today. You can claim otherwise, but we can all see it clearly, so all you're doing is giving up what little credibility you have.
Look, I can't help what you "see clearly". You're going to hallucinate what you're going to hallucinate, and nothing I do can change that.
Simple test: who is in favour of providing further support for Ukraine and who opposes it? Not unreasonable to think that those who are in favour are anti-Putin, and those who are against are pro-Putin. Who is in each camp?
I suppose someone might argue that people opposed to helping Ukraine are simply opposed to foreign entanglements or increases in Federal spending, but I am not aware that these people are also applying these principles elsewhere…GOP as the party of defence cuts?
Look, I do think we should be aiding Ukraine. Both because it's in our strategic interest to bleed Russia dry, and because we agreed to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in return for them stupidly giving up the part of the USSR's nuclear arsenal that had been on their territory. We either back them, or our already flimsy credibility takes a fresh hit.
But, yeah, it's quite possible, in the context of a terrifyingly huge ONE POINT SIX TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT!!!!! to think that we simply can't afford to keep this up. Especially since we're not actually replacing the munitions we're sending to them, we're just sorta planning on replacing them, sooner or later. So our military readiness is dropping like a rock, and our adversaries are noticing that.
Do you scream, "Biden is a Chinese puppet!" every time he deliberately lets a Chinese spy balloon cross our airspace unmolested, sending information back home using US based telecoms? Because that's an even more straightforward case of sucking up to a foreign despot.
Oh, sure, a balloon versus an entire country.
If you hate the deficit you probably shouldn't be voting for Trump.
But instead for somebody who's worse?
Look, I would LOVE to vote for somebody who'd actually cut the deficit. His first year in office, Trump submitted a budget with cuts, and Congress responded by sending him increases, instead, passed by a veto proof bipartisan majority.
And then he gave up on trying to cut spending, rather than going through the motions in order to make clear who was driving the deficit. I think that was a mistake, but it wasn't a crazy mistake, he only had so much political capital to spend.
Presidents can't cut the deficit when Congress is determined to spend like there's no tomorrow. Sadly, they CAN egg Congress on to even worse deficit spending, and Biden sure has been doing that, when he wasn't doing things like illegally forgiving loans owed to the government.
Considering you can't pull your head out of your Leftist ass long enough to be acquainted with reality I don't think you're describing anything but the boogiemen of your deluded imagination.
Does the Professor name names?
I grew up hating the Soviets and disliking the Russians. I hope they get their asses handed to them.
That doesn't mean I want us to write big checks to Ukraine over and over.
I want the NY Yankees to lose every year. That doesn't make me a Red Sox fan or make me want to mortgage my house to help them pick up a starting pitcher.
Whether one wants to support Ukraine or not, it should be understood that nobody is "writing big checks to Ukraine." We have been giving them actual military equipment and supplies. Of course that ultimately costs us money since we have to replace that stuff, but the image people having of us sending bundles of cash to Ukraine is just wrong.
A lot of our expense comes from replacing equipment we’re giving them. Thanks for that clarification.
It still cost the US a lot of money and still doesn't mean contra Somin that unwillingness to pony up for Ukraine means being a supporter of Russia or Putin.
It certainly does either mean such a thing, or that you have no understanding of our international obligations we've committed to and the consequences of demonstrating to the world that our word doesn't mean a goddamn thing, not only to our allies and would-be allies, but our enemies as well.
It’s there a limit to the the number of US dollars you’re willing to put toward the defense of Ukraine?
If it’s so important that they succeed, are you willing to send troops?
Where does your support stop, and why there?
Nope. Every dollar we spend now is more efficient than the money we'd spend if we allow Ukraine to fall. Russia will not only be a closer threat to Europe and more dangerous strategically and tactically should Ukraine fall, but Russia will be gaining conquest and resources which will make them a stronger opponent. After Ukraine, one can expect Moldova and Georgia, if not more countries to also fall to Russian aggression.
I would send troops if need be. Right now all they need is ammunition and a GOP that isn't a bunch of Trump sycophants. Great Britain and Ireland should also be willing to send troops if necessary.
I'd prefer it be UN forces, but since Russia is on the Security Council, that will never be allowed unless we somehow kick them off.
Ukraine gave up the world's third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons 30 years ago because of security assurances from, in part, us. Our word either means something, or our allies have no reason to be such, and our enemies have no reason to fear our so-called 'red lines.'
How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for UKR?
An odd question, lots of people are currently dying for Ukraine, none of them American, unless they're volunteers, so the question is, how many lives is Putin willing to spend?
How much more power over the world do you want Putin to have?
You're right. He should have asked Jason Cavanaugh if Jason was willing to enlist and help fight Putin.
Why?
Because if Jason is willing to send American troops shouldn't be be willing to go as well? Or are you only willing to send others?
Me? As many as it takes. I put my ass on the line in Bosnia (and lost a buddy there) so I feel comfortable saying that. You, on the other hand, are a coward.
More than your integrity is worth, that's for certain.
They don't need troops; they need ammunition and supplies. How pathetic and feckless do you want the world to believe us to be that you aren't willing to provide even that much to honor our treaties?
Yet you're all gung-ho on ethnic cleansing by Israel. Funny that.
So how many Americans are YOU (Jason) willing to sacrifice for UKR?
You're the guy saying you'd send troops. So how many are you willing to have die on a UKR battlefield? It is a fair question.
Are you you just too chickenshit to answer it directly.
As many as it takes to secure Ukraine's internationally-recognized borders, you dumb fuck.
What did you think I was going to say? Seven? 13,048? You either do the job completely, or it isn't worth doing at all.
Any other sealioning you'd like for me to address while you flounder for a valid argument?
As many as it takes. That is your answer.
Thank God you have no real influence.
You support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. I support America keeping its word and upholding our international commitments.
You have no argument, and no standing whatsoever to chastise anyone about what is right or wrong.
Let me know if you come up with any substantive remarks.
How do you think all those Ukrainian government officials and their families got all that wealth?
Whether it is cash, equipment or a combination of both ( which is the actual reality) I want to know where it is going, what the definition of success is and I want to know if there is a limit to USA support. I also want to know that Ukraine is worth defending ( Ukraine presidential election would have been this month but was cancelled).
It's easy to say Putin/Russia bad so we must support Ukraine but our support should not be open ended and our NATO allies must also step up significantly since part of opposing Putin/Russia is to keep them safe.
Demanding that there be accountability over the situation in Ukraine is not being pro Putin/Russia. It is simply common sense.
Our objectives were to degrade Russia’s military AND achieve energy dominance. Biden has played this optimally and we have achieved our goals. Furthermore, we know from the first Trump impeachment that Zelensky was gung ho about receiving lethal aid even as Trump withheld it. So if your concern is Nuland manipulating Zelensky to further America’s interests then you can sleep soundly because that isn’t happening.
If we were after energy dominance the Biden Maladministration would have kept Trump's energy policies in place and continued to block the Nordstream pipeline instead of approving it. That alone might have prevented the invasion since it would have deprived Russia of the funds needed to finance the invasion.
Also didn't Biden early on say that a "minor incursion" by Russia wouldn't bring serious consequences? Why yes he did.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/biden-minor-incursion-ukraine-putin-russia-invasion-nato-rcna12886
And of course Biden didn't send weapons until it was too late whereas Trump did send weapons. Trump also warned European leaders about relying on Russian oil and they laughed at him( he has now been proven correct). Trump also told NATO members that they needed to meet their obligations to finance their militaries.
There is a reason Russia has only invade Ukraine under Obam's and Biden's Maladministrations but not under Trump's.
Uh, we had a record dollar amount of energy company bankruptcies in 2020…that’s not energy dominance by any definition. Now, the record energy production under Biden along with the record LNG exports to replace Russian natural gas in Europe is energy dominance by Trump’s definition. Your entire comment is just getting lost in the weeds…you probably smoke too much weed like most Reason commenters. Puff puff give, motherfucker!!
You mean the LNG exports that the Biden Maladministration recently banned?
Under the Biden Maladministration the Nordstream pipeline was approved and if it had not been sabotaged would have allowed more Russian gasoline to traverse to Europe.
At the same time the Biden Maladministration cancelled the Keystone pipeline. So according to the Biden Maladministration Russian pipeline to Europe=good but a USA pipeline=bad.
How would a non-operating pipeline have given Russia funds needed to finance the invasion? (Nordstream 2 never opened.)
You don't think that other countries wouldn't give credit to Russfor purchases based upon potential revenue from the Nord Stream pipeline? A pipeline that if opened would bring in billions in revenue per year?
What is your point? Biden was asked how the U.S. would respond to Russia, and his response was, in essence, "It depends on what Russia does."
No, he fucking didn't. Congress did. Trump illegally refused to send those weapons, trying to use them to extort Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden. Only after he was caught (and for which he was ultimately impeached) did he do what he was legally required to do.
Your TDS is showing.
Here is someone threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they don't get their way.
https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY?si=iTVe7z13APK4q8tz
Trump delayed aid until certain certifications that Ukraine was dealing with it's well known corruption was made and it is undeniable that the first weapons sent to Ukraine occurred under Trump's Administration. Obama only sent a little food and blankets. Facts are facts.
False. Those certifications — which are of course not done inside the Oval Office — were all complete. Then Trump made his extortionate call, saying he wouldn't send the weapons unless Zelensky did him a favor first.
1. It’s $70 billion, or a little over 1% of what we borrowed a few years ago. This is nothing. We can easily afford it, especially since it’s to stop tanks which will not stop with Ukraine.
2. Even if it were expensive, that’s a shit reason not to do it.
That's a reason someone tosses off for you to regurgitate, when they support Putin for other reasons.
Over the past 70 years we have spent trillions - TRILLIONS - on keeping Russia in check. And now here is this brave little army decimating them and we could help it on the cheap for a few billion. Russia's diminution at the hands of Ukraine is a godsend, so why the fuck can you not see that?
Take up a collection around the office then. I'd probably chip in $5.
I hear you, when you were supporting W, The President and his $5 trillion GWOT that made us less safe I wanted to do that. Elections have consequences.
I don’t know hobie, how about since illegal 2014 Western Marxist Color Revolution, the Globalists have been attacking and oppressing ethnic Russians in the south part of Ukraine?
Don’t people deserve some measure of self-governance and self-rule? Or must everyone be subjugated to the modern day Bolsheviks?
Dictatorship needs to take over some other country's land because they're oppressing our ethnic nationals there!
You know who said that? Hitler! And they gave him the land. And he didn't stop.
No, we spent 46 years and trillions of dollars keeping the Soviet Union in check - because it was a Communist country. Once it ceased to be Communist, it (should have) ceased to concern us.
There are still plenty of Communists around, whether one looks at China, BLM, or the average university faculty. Let's spend our time and money keeping them in check.
The problem is that when totally-not-communist Russia decides to reclaim its illegitimate breakaway republic of Latvia, we are treaty bound to defend Latvia.
We spent 46 years and trillions of dollars keeping the Soviet Union in check because it was an aggressive totalitarian state. That it was a 'communist' country had something to do with why it was an aggressive totalitarian state, (There being no peaceful, free communist countries...) but it was the aggressive totalitarian part that was the important bit.
An insular, free communist state, (As self-contradictory as that would be.) would be a threat to no one.
My sources (mostly The Duran podcast) tell me that all of Putin's major rivals at home are hardliners who would like to have the Soviet Union back. So if anyone in the State Dept. has a way to knock Putin out of office or kill him, they should really think twice before using it. I don't love Putin but he can at least be reasoned with.
Putin has always wanted to increase value added exports but for the most part he has failed. So Russia’s government is mostly funded by natural gas exports similar to USSR being funded by oil exports. Why would you want to increase your population by annexing other countries when you would end up watering down your revenue stream?? Qatar isn’t trying to grow their land mass. So the goal in Ukraine was to install a puppet government and give them a break on natural gas while selling them crappy Russian value added products.
For extremely limited values of "reasoned with", I suppose he can be "reasoned with". Very limited values indeed.
I think his hardliner rivals would be less effective than him, because, if they could be more effective, he'd be the rival, not them. Sure, every time you knock out the #1 bad guy, somebody else becomes #1. Doesn't mean they're as effective at it.
So, if the US could deniably take out Putin, I'd consider that a good thing. Just the resulting disarray might be enough to end his war with Ukraine.