Here is today's update!

Links and Stuff

Want to contribute?

RSS Feed

Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Add to the above list if you can, thank you.

Resources For Understanding The War Beyond The Bulletins

Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map, who is an independent youtuber with a mostly neutral viewpoint.

Moon of Alabama, which tends to have good analysis (though also a couple bad takes here and there)

Understanding War and the Saker: neo-conservative sources but their reporting of the war (so far) seems to line up with reality better than most liberal sources.

Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict and, unlike most western analysts, has some degree of understanding on how war works. He is a reactionary, however.

On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent journalist reporting in the Ukrainian warzones.

Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.

Yesterday's discussion post.

  • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Slavoj Zizek reveals feelings on RT role

    Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek has defended publishing his writings on RT, pointing out in an op-ed published in Germany’s Berliner Zeitung on Sunday that stories and opinions that are overlooked or even prohibited on the pages of the Western press can find safe harbor on this site.

    “Am I ashamed to have published my texts on Russia Today? No, absolutely not!” Zizek wrote.

    While the philosopher professed “full support of Ukraine,” he insisted that this stance did not contradict his previous writings for RT at all, calling it “part of the same fight” in the same manner that “fighting anti-Semitism and fighting what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in the West Bank” are not mutually exclusive.

    As the range of permitted opinions in Western media narrowed, he said he had no choice but to turn to RT to publish his own views, citing the “weaknesses of liberal democracy, Israel’s policy of apartheid in the West Bank, [and] the aberrations of political correctness” as examples of topics considered off-limits in the Western press.

    They mention Assange, then:

    Commenting on calls for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be tried for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Zizek argued for former president George W. Bush, as well as his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, if he were still alive, to be similarly tried for the invasion of Iraq under manufactured pretenses. The West and Russia must be interrogated with “the same critical questions,” he said. “How can the US demand this while not recognizing the jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal over its own citizens?”

    Neither ‘side’ should be considered immune from criticism, Zizek argued. “If we are forced to choose between Ukraine and Assange, we are doomed. Then we have sold our soul to the devil.”

    • Ideology [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Zizek's based levels are like a pendulum. He's constantly saying cool shit, and yet when you read some of his shit takes you're just like "is this the same guy?"

      • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Dealing with socially conservative communists - such as those in Russia, who remember that they were better off under communism but don't really understand exactly why and therefore fall for weird traps like "the gays dunnit!", or China, though that's improving over time I feel - is always a bit frustrating for that reason. Zizek isn't that bad (I think - I don't know what his exact takes are on most social issues but the use of "political correctness" there is setting off alarm bells) but still, same overall group of people.

        • Ideology [she/her]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Zizek isn't really conservative. He's anti-racist and pretty sexually liberal (to a weird degree), which gives him the ideological freedom to point out any and all capitalist offenses against minorities and colonized peoples with materialist clarity regarding the realpolitik behind those decisions. I will concede that he has old manisms regarding queerness, intersectionality, and nonbinary identities, but he is definitely in the pro-gay-rights camp and throws shade at Western govts over it frequently.

          But for some reason his works accept mainstream narratives of AES atrocities and so he tends to view historical movements as abject failures right out the gate. He and Badiou both play off each other to try to redefine socialism to move beyond the USSR and China, but in their desire to learn from the past they reject a lot of lessons AESs already learned for themselves.