Putin’s Russian Led Corruption of Anglosphere and European Radical Right, Conservatives and Christians

Some years ago Putin and Russia attracted much attention and sympathy from Anglo and European ultra conservative Christians, radical right and free market libertarians for Russia’s corrupt nativist authoritarianism with antipathy towards liberal democracy, the EU and open society.

These phenomena can be observed through visitors and liaisons, but more so by shared talking points and values.  These include family values, pro-life, Christianity, patriarchy, misogyny, white supremacy, traditionalism, dominionism, Evangelicals, anti-LGBT, anti-woke,  anti-elite, anti-gay marriage, traditional wives etc. and corruption, promoted by right wing parties, media, ultra conservative influencers, think tanks and NGOs.

The latter includes Russian Orthodox Church, ADF Alliance Defending Freedom, WCC World Council of Churches, WCF World Congress of Families, Baptist Convention, CNP Council for National Policy, UK Tories, US GOP, Australian LNP, IDU International Democratic Union, Legatum, Tufton Street London, Heritage Foundation, Danube Institute, Conservatives for Russia, ARC Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, Atlas or Koch Network, Tanton Network, CPAC, Breitbart, Fox News, GB News, Rebel News and a conga line of transnational grifters.

Foremost have been Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Steve Bannon, Marie Le Pen, Nigel Farage, John Howard, Tony Abbott, Alexander Downer, ‘Moscow Mike’ Flynn, Tucker Carlson, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News team, Sean Hannity, Boris Johnson, Benjamin Netanyahu  et al. with related events including Brexit, Trump, Australia’s Voice Referendum and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

From ECFR European Council on Foreign Relations:

‘Conservatism by decree: Putin as a figurehead for the global far-right

Vladimir Putin is ramping up his radical-right credentials. This reinforces his grip on power in Russia, but it could also increase his influence worldwide

Ksenia Luchenko Visiting Fellow

1 March 2024

In his state of the nation address on 29 February, Vladimir Putin doubled down on a theme that has become familiar to Russians over the past few months: family, or more specifically, “traditional family values”. “Some countries,” he said, “deliberately destroy norms of morality, institutions of the family, push whole peoples towards extinction and degeneration.” Not so in Russia: “we choose life.” The ultraconservatism tied up in this discourse has been central to Putin’s campaign ahead of the Russian election this month – and will shape his fifth term as president that follows.

Putin has long promoted the narrative that “traditional values” are what differentiate Russia from the “satanic West”. But Putin’s brand of conservatism is in keeping with a wider political trend, rooted in the right-Christian agenda that formed during the US culture wars of the late 20th century. According to the political scientist Gionathan Lo Mascolo, the shift comprises “two major colliding phenomena: the politicization of religion, often driven by religious actors, leaders, and institutions; and the sacralization of politics, driven by far-right parties and actors”.

This “moralist international” is made up of far-right populists spanning the American and European continents (and their companions in assorted churches). Donald Trump and his acolytes, of course. But also, for example, Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro, who combined idolisation of “the traditional Brazilian family” with religious and nationalistic sloganeering to help erode years of social progress in the country. Viktor Orban’s Hungary follows a similar pattern.

But Putin has power to implement his domestic agenda that his American and European counterparts can only dream of, unconstrained by law, opposition, or public opinion. Just as Bolshevism in the Soviet Union was a radical, fundamentalist interpretation of socialism, Russia now pushes moral traditionalism to the extreme. The president hands down one decree after another to regulate morality and ethics, and demonstrates his power over the private lives of his citizens. In doing so, he not only positions himself as a leader in an alternative (authoritarian) global order, but also stamps out liberal life in Russia and strengthens his autocracy.

Last year saw a spike in ideologically driven lawmaking in Russia, with women and the LGBT+ community, especially transgender people, emerging as key targets. Gender transition – both surgical procedures and hormonal therapy, along with changing one’s gender on official documents – was completely banned. Those who had already transitioned were forbidden from adopting children. On November 30, the Russian Supreme Court declared the non-existent “International LGBT Movement” an extremist organisation and prohibited its activities. Essentially, same-sex relationships are now illegal, as are any symbols associated with the ‘movement’, including rainbow earrings and My Little Pony.

Another key theme is pro-natalism. A bill prohibiting the promotion of childlessness is currently under consideration in the Duma, stating voluntary childlessness “goes against traditional family values and the state policy of the Russian Federation”. But on abortion, authorities have yet to arrive at a definitive stance. Some regions have instituted penalties for “encouraging abortion” and engaging in the “propagation of abortions”. This was followed by a Ministry of Health directive limiting access to emergency contraception. Then, in November 2023, Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, petitioned Vyacheslav Volodin, Chair of the State Duma, seeking endorsement for the prohibition of abortions within private clinics.

However, during a press conference in December, Putin called for a circumspect approach to the abortion issue, asserting that the solution lies in a “return to traditional values … and in the sphere of material well-being.” Subsequently, the State Duma health committee rebuffed support for a federal ban on abortions within private clinics.

As with all potentially sensitive governance decisions that affect the populace (such as pandemic restrictions and mobilisation), Russia is experiencing what political analyst Ekaterina Shulman terms “paradoxical federalisation” – a devolution of responsibility from the federal centre to lower levels; regional authorities shoulder the burden of unpopular decisions, shielding the president from direct association.

Moreover, Putin has begun to break taboos on interference in the private, relational sphere. Until recently, Russian society had operated under an unspoken rule of family inviolability and non-publicity. The public should not intrude in the family life of the president and top officials, and they broadly returned the favour. That is, there was no physical belonging of citizens to the state. Even following Putin’s “gay propaganda” law in 2013, people were generally left alone to live their lives if they did so in private. But now the rules have changed.

Since the start of the war, officials have found a new way to express their loyalty to the president: the adoption of children abducted from the occupied territories of Ukraine. 

Reliable evidence exists for two such cases. Sergei Mironov, head of the Just Russia party and a member of the State Duma, and his wife took two children from the Kherson region and adopted them, changing their names. And Russian children’s rights ombudsman, Maria Lvova-Belova, who shares an International Court of Justice arrest warrant with Putin for illegal deportations of Ukrainian children, adopted a teenager from Mariupol. Lvova-Belova did so publicly, normalising her crime. Mironov hides the expansion of his family, but it follows the same trend: the intimate lives of people who pursue political careers is now subordinated to state interests.

And this change is not limited to political elites. Addressing municipal deputies in January, Putin alluded disparagingly to people who “jump around without pants at parties”, contrasting them with the supposed piety of the military. This intervention seemingly condemned Russian celebrities who participated in a private “almost naked” party in December, organised by popular blogger and influencer Anastasia Ivleeva. After semi-nude photos of the celebrities surfaced on social media, they faced a wave of criticism for immoral behavior and persecution by law enforcement. Similar cases have begun to occur in other cities, where attendees of private parties have been accused of “anti-Christian propaganda” and “gay propaganda”.

Private morality and ethics have thus become subjects of state interest – and the president himself has confirmed it. Given that liberals in Russia tend to be more pro-Western, it all contributes to his long campaign to obliterate any remaining pockets of dissent.

But by ramping up his far-right credentials in this way, Putin also aims to win (and win back) friends abroad, especially where Russia and Russian Orthodoxy have historically had a strong presence – for instance, in EU candidate countries Serbia, Georgia, and Moldova. There, pro-Russian political forces garner support in part through their hostility towards feminism, abortion, and the LGBT+ community. Georgia and Moldova will head to the polls this year – and Russian propaganda will use the full range of anti-Western rhetoric to increase its influence and weaken these countries’ support for Ukraine.

Indeed, Russian journalist Mikhael Zygar has argued that Putin’s far-right positioning is a form of statecraft, aimed mainly at this external audience. Putin thus builds Russian influence by adopting trends from the very West that he rails against. He seems to want to show his current and potential allies that an alternative to democracy exists, one that allows for the disregard of human rights and international law in pursuit of “traditional values”. In this way, he sets himself up as a figurehead for the informal international conservative alliance – a political and societal network that unites right-conservative forces worldwide.’

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of their individual authors.

For more related blogs and article on topics including Conservative, Demography, EU European Union, Evangelical Christianity, Koch Network, Media, Political Strategy, Populist Politics, Russia, Tanton Network and White Nationalism click through:

Russia and Anglosphere – Conservatives and Oligarchs – War vs EU and Future

Very good insight into and overview of Putin’s Russia and the ‘west’ including the Anglosphere from Alexander Etkin (CEU Wien) in Russia’s War Against Modernity.

Following are significant excerpts from Etkind’s analysis from reviewer at Inside Story (Australia) Jon Richardson, on how it endeavours to explain Russia, and one would add many other nations too, mirroring the radical right or corrupt nativist authoritarians with support from fossil fuels & industry oligarchs, consolidated right wing media, think tanks and leveraging ageing electorates.

Alliance for Responsible Citizenship ARC and Anglo Right Wing Grifters

Another nativist Christian front promoting a conference with a whiff of fossil fuels, climate science denial with Anglosphere right wing grifters and ‘freedom and liberty’ supported by Legatum, and no doubt indirectly linked to Koch Network, like Brexit and its deep pocketed foreign supporters.

Alexander Downer – Donald Trump aide George Papadopoulos – Russian Influence?

Alexander Downer, former Australian Foreign Minister in Conservative LNP coalition, Australia’s UK High Commissioner till 2018, visitor to Koch Network Heritage Foundation linked Hungarian Danube Institute (with former PM, now GWPF, UK Trade Advisor and Murdochs’ new Fox Board member Tony Abbott), and source for claims by Trump related people of DNC emails stolen by Russians i.e. George Papadopoulos.

‘Just a diplomat doing his job? A new book puts the spotlight back on Australia, Russia and interference in the US election.’

Historical Influence and Links Between Russia and the US Christian Right

We observe in the Anglosphere resurgence in conservative Christian nationalism of the right, becoming a central issue in ageing electorates, more in the US, Russia and Central Europe; both an electoral and policy strategy, plus supporting beliefs.

Some of the Anglo links are former Australian PM and now UK Trade Advisor Tony Abbott with the ADF Alliance Defending Freedom, Donald Trump gaining support of Evangelical and ‘pro-life’ Christians, the fossil fueled Atlas or Koch Network and their influence on the conservative Christian CNP Council for National Policy, Koch influenced Federalist Society promoting ‘pro-life’ choices for SCOTUS on Roe vs. Wade, then sharing similar values with Orban et al. in Central Europe, and Putin in Russia too?

Nigel Farage – Julian Assange – Wikileaks – Trump Campaign – Russian Influence

In the Anglosphere there is still much confusion around Assange, Wikileaks, stolen DNC emails, Russian influence, Russia Report, Mueller Report, Trump campaign, Murdoch’s Fox News, Nigel Farage, Roger Stone, Cambridge Analytica, Tufton St. think tanks linked to Atlas or Koch Network, Steve Bannon  and right wing grifters, out to defeat Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Presidential Campaign in 2016.

Russia and Anglosphere – Conservatives and Oligarchs – War vs EU and Future

Very good insight into and overview of Putin’s Russia and the ‘west’ including the Anglosphere from Alexander Etkin (presently of CEU Wien).

Following are significant excerpts from Etkind’s analysis from reviewer at Inside Story (Australia) Jon Richardson, on how it endeavours to explain Russia, and one would add many other nations too, mirroring the radical right or corrupt nativist authoritarians with support from fossil fuels & industry oligarchs, consolidated right wing media, think tanks and leveraging ageing electorates.

A link of interest is in Hungary Central Europe where a few entities promote Christian nationalist conservatism, namely The Centre for Fundamental Rights (linked to US CPAC), MCC Mathias Corvinus Collegium and the Danubius Institute (linked to the Koch Network Heritage Foundation).  Further former Murdoch – Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson would promote both Hungary and Putin’s Russia (vs. Ukraine), with dog whistling of Soros via the anti-semitic ‘great replacement’, anti-refugee and anti-immigration sentiment supported by Tanton Network, with a veritable ‘conga line’ of Anglo conservatives presenting in Hungary, in support. 

If one goes back in history with the Anglosphere, much was and is still shared with Russia’s regime and its former empire, including related to the British (& German) royal families, shared conservatism, religious orthodoxy, far right nativism or nationalism, authoritarianism, class order, fossil fuels and oligarchy.

If one then looks at the values, interests and talking points of major Anglo media outlets, think tanks in Koch Network, unspoken but dog whistled class order and eugenics of Tanton Network, are there similarities that make allegations of Russian influence on Brexit and Trump, seem unsurprising?

Using sociocultural issues to deflect and divide electorates for right wing power, e.g. modern immigration, authoritarianism to negate any dissent, then use Orwellian doublespeak for ageing voters to deny freedoms for younger generations, but how does this relate Russia and the Anglosphere apart from these obvious generic traits?

Climate science denial, anti-EU for Brexit to avoid constraints e.g. financial transparency, anti-money laundering measures, workers’ rights & unions, work health & safety, open society and empowered citizens. Central has been the US fossil fueled ‘libertarian’ Koch Network think tanks in US, UK and Australia, with media architecture helped by Rupert Murdoch while still unresolved, but Russian money and influence in UK politics, especially the Conservative party. 

Finally the use of events or grifters to inversely present pro-Russian narratives by blaming Ukraine, NATO, the EU and the west for provoking Russia through visitors platformed in Hungary.  The highest profile ‘geopolitical experts’ visiting and demanding ‘peace’ included Jeffrey Sachs linked to (originally) fossil fueled Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil/Exxon & UN ‘Sustainability’) and John Mearsheimer with the Charles Koch Foundation.

Another important area of shared interests, often presented alongside ‘peace’ and anti-EU platforms, is conservative Christianity, especially the US environment via the Council on National Policy which is described as ‘owned’, like the GOP, by Koch Network donors or investors; over years since Soviet times there have been links whether WCC, WCG or more recently ADF, while energising evangelicals, pro-life, Baptists and Catholics.

Who is manipulating whom?

From Inside Story:

‘Russia’s war with the future

Underlying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are existential fears of democracy, diversity, sustainability and the decline of patriarchy

What links Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutinous March on Moscow, climate denialism, the Nord Stream pipeline and vaccine scepticism with the jailing of Aleksei Navalny, the Russian Orthodox patriarch’s rants against “gay parades,” domestic violence and declining life expectancy in Russia?

In his provocative new book, Russia Against Modernity, Alexander Etkind argues that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is part of a single, broad historical pattern. It is the last gasp of a failing, kleptocratic petrostate for which external aggression is a natural move. Rather than the Ukraine war itself, Etkind is interested in the conditions within Russia that have culminated so calamitously.

In what is more a pamphlet than a treatise, Etkind combines brevity and playfulness with a degree of erudition that other works covering the Russia–Ukraine conflict seldom manage, melding political economy, history, demography, social theory and social psychology. That range reflects Etkind’s eclectic polymathy: a native of St Petersburg (then Leningrad), he grew up in the Soviet Union, completed two degrees in psychology at Leningrad State University before earning a PhD in Slavonic cultural history in Helsinki, and has variously taught and researched — in faculties of sociology, political science, languages, history and international relations — in St Petersburg, New York, Cambridge, Florence and Vienna…

….Most explanations of the Ukraine war tend to give primacy to either external or internal factors. The “externalists,” for want of a better word, include those who claim the war is a natural outcome of unwise/reckless NATO expansion. Going further, some even buy the Kremlin line — despite all evidence to the contrary — that the West’s fundamental, if unstated, goal is to weaken or destroy Russia.

At the other end of the externalist spectrum are those, including many Ukrainians and East Europeans, who believe an inherent imperialism is demonstrated by Russia’s aggression towards former territories. Some attribute this to the size of the country, its innate political culture, the “Russian psyche” or, in its crudest renderings, a kind of Russian DNA.

“Internalists” emphasise the domestic drivers of the war — notably an authoritarian state’s need to legitimise itself through nationalist and revanchist propaganda. In this view, the Ukraine war and other militaristic posturing or adventures are cynically deployed to further the interests of the elite. For some, Ukraine presented a threat to the Kremlin because it offered a democratic alternative. A handful on the left claim that the war’s roots lie in the ambitions of Russian oligarchs vying to capture Ukraine’s valuable natural and other resources.…

….Etkind’s main idea is that the Russian state and society is an exemplar of “paleomodernity,” following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union in championing “grand designs, unlimited social engineering, huge and bulky technology, total transformation of nature.” For Etkind, Putin’s war is not only a “special operation” against the Ukrainian people, their statehood and culture; it is also “a broader operation against the modern world of climate awareness, energy transition and digital labor.”

If paleo modernity — a conglomeration of steel, oil and gunpowder — reached its apotheosis in the twentieth century, then its twenty-first-century antithesis is “gaia modernity,” a higher form of civilisation where small, sustainable, democratic and feminine are beautiful, and racial, sexual and intellectual diversity are cherished. Etkind seems to see this nightmarish scenario for Tucker Carlson or Sky After Dark’s pundits as both a utopia to be dreamed of and a kind of immanent social order, destined to emerge, echoing Hegel’s and Marx’s systems of thought.

Etkind’s key take is that the “oiligarchs” and bureaucrats running Russia saw this “advance of history” as an existential threat to its oil and gas exports, which make up a third of Russia’s GDP, two-thirds of its exports and half the state budget. The money was crucial to the stability of Russia’s currency, crucial for its military spending and crucial for maintaining the elite’s luxurious lifestyle. It was also the chief driver of corruption, inequality and declining social and demographic indicators. All of this fed popular disillusionment, growing authoritarianism and elite paranoia and the ideologies supporting aggression.

As an archetypal petrostate, Etkind argues, Russia is afflicted by the resource curse, whereby an economy as a whole underperforms because a single commodity is so dominant. Initially, in the 2000s, rising oil prices underpinned Putin’s success in restoring economic growth. The populace gained a welcome sense of stability after the economic and political turmoil of the “wild nineties,” leading many to accept the gradual erosion of civil liberties.

By the 2010s, however, not only were Russian incomes falling but so were a range of social and economic metrics. By 2021, life expectancy had fallen to 105th globally, per-capita health spending to 104th and education spending to 125th. Russia had the fourth-highest carbon emissions globally and among the highest rates of suicides, abortions, road deaths and industrial accidents.

Thanks largely to embezzlement, post-Soviet Russia witnessed the fastest rise in inequality ever recorded. Its income inequality was among the world’s highest and by 2021 it led all major countries in inequality of wealth: 58 per cent of national wealth belonging to the top 1 per cent, well above Brazil (49 per cent) and the United States (35 per cent). More than a fifth of Russia’s citizens, meanwhile, lived on less than US$10 a day, and the middle class had been hollowed out.

In excess of three trillion dollars had been stolen and squirrelled away abroad — more than the total financial assets legally owned by Russian households. “Economists from Harvard and Moscow alike believed that economic growth would be the source of all good in Russia, that accumulated wealth would trickle down to the poor, that the rising tide would lift all boats,” writes Etkind. “In fact, it lifted only the yachts of the rich. The boats of the poor leaked, and they drowned in the tide.”….

….Some of Etkind’s most interesting, albeit speculative, chapters deal with the interplay between Russia’s political economy, its demographic decline and issues like gender inequality and homophobia. The latter have become a common theme of state-sponsored propaganda: TV pundits talk about fighting a degenerate West where genders proliferate; patriarchs and priests equate the war on Ukraine with fighting those Satanic “gay parades.”

Partly because of very high divorce rates, children are raised by only one parent, usually the mother, in one in three Russian families. Etkind pushes the envelope when he posits the growth of “fatherlessness” as a cause of authoritarian tendencies, as some postwar German theorists did in the case of Nazi Germany. High rates of domestic violence — which was actually decriminalised in 2017 in a nod to patriarchal opinion — have been another symptom of social dysfunction.

Etkind also highlights “granny power” as another bulwark against modernity: the heightened role of babushki (grandmothers) in many three-generation households, he says, imbues children with backward-looking and authoritarian ideas and attitudes. The three-generation household, with overburdened mothers and absent fathers, is a product of the inadequate incomes, housing, childcare and pensions generated by the parasitic petrostate, as well as men’s much lower life expectancy (sixty-five years, compared with women’s seventy-seven).

Etkind points to other elements of Russia’s demographic catastrophe — world-leading abortion rates, high rates of emigration among the young and educated — as signs of lack of trust and faith in a future governed by a corrupt and authoritarian state. “The birth rate,” he writes, “was the ultimate manifestation of public opinion.” A lot of these demographic problems were also present in the Soviet years, serving as a kind of canary in the mine presaging the Soviet Union’s decline.

….Etkind coins the term “stop modernism” to describe Russia’s “special operation” against gaia modernity. The war in Ukraine is just one weapon in its arsenal, alongside climate denial, election interference and others. Decarbonisation represents a huge challenge to Russia’s interests, and although Putin’s regime has played along at times with moves towards curbing emissions, it has also played a spoiler role. The biggest “gaia modern” threat to the wealth of Russia’s elite have been the moves towards zero emissions by the European Union, its chief market for gas and oil, including the Transborder Carbon Tax announced in 2021.

Etkind also suggests that the 2009 Climategate hacks of emails, which purported to show climate change to be a conspiracy among scientists, was of a piece with Russia’s more recent hacking and online-disinformation efforts (including via Prigozhin’s infamous troll factories) to support right-wing politicians in the United States and Europe….

….Russia Against Modernity ends with a picture of the future: Russia will inevitably lose the war and begin a process of defederation. Its constituent national minorities, indigenous peoples and diverse regions will at last — after a long but hopefully not bloody transition period — gain real autonomy and democracy and move towards a gaia modern world, leaving behind the petrostate that has exploited them. One can’t help feeling that this is more utopian dream than sober analysis, however much we might hope elements of it come true.

Sceptics may ask whether Russia is really so different from some or many developed capitalist societies in terms of the evils and dysfunctions Etkind outlines. I suspect he would say that they/we all cling to elements of paleo modernity to differing degrees, exemplified in different political and social forces competing with the gaia modern. He would add that, as a petrostate, Russia is a more extreme and different kind of polity in terms of its interest in thwarting gaia modernity.

Russia Against Modernity is a useful corrective for some on the left (and far right) who are instinctively suspicious of American actions and see merit in claims that Ukraine is a “proxy war” by NATO against Russia. Systemic factors in Russia are more than enough to explain the war, without having to disentangle the history of NATO enlargement or the contribution of Western blundering in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. As I have argued elsewhere, while we can debate the wisdom or morality of these actions, none represented a serious threat to Russia. And Etkind is right to see Ukraine’s treatment of Russian speakers and other internal issues as more of a “fetish” among the Russian elite, as he puts it, rather than a serious factor.

Etkind’s work is also valuable because he is a Russian with an intimate understanding of the country and broad international experience who brings to bear serious intellectual firepower. In one section, “The Unbearable Lightness of Western Pundits,” he beautifully skewers so-called experts like Niall Ferguson and Adam Tooze who pointed to Ukrainian weaknesses and the inevitability of Russian victory just before the 2022 invasion. Another target is international relations guru John Mearsheimer, who more or less justified the invasion by saying that, if Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would suffer “existentially.” Russia now has both Sweden and Finland rushing to join NATO, while Ukraine, of course, had no near-term prospect of membership.

One thing common to these generalist historians, economists and foreign policy wonks is a lack of real expertise in Russian or Ukrainian history and politics. That’s why it is vital to listen to independent Russian (and Ukrainian!) voices on the war, as well as real Western specialists. Only a few of the latter make excuses for Putin’s regime and many would see merit in the broad thrust of Etkind’s argument.

Likewise, the Russian democratic opposition almost unanimously sees the war as generated by systemic internal problems. They would agree with Aleksei Navalny, whom Etkind lauds as the champion of exposing corruption, in blaming the war on Russia’s “endless cycle of imperial authoritarianism.” 

Russia Against Modernity

By Alexander Etkind | Polity Press’

For more related articles and blogs on Ageing Democracy, Conservative, EU European Union, Evangelical Christianity, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Nationalism, Political Strategy, Russia, Tanton Network and White Nationalism click through:

The Tory donor, Soviet-born Billionaire and Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling British Politics – ByLine Times 

Conservative Christian CNP – Council for National Policy in US – Influence in UK, Russia and Europe

Russia Report – Anglo Conservatives Compromised by Russian Interference on EU and Brexit

Chomsky, US, Russian Propaganda and Faux Anti-Imperialist Narratives

Fake Anti-Imperialists of the Anglo Left and Right on Ukraine and Russia

Russian Brexit Coup by Putin and Compromised British Conservatives

Strange Conservative Political Links – The Anglosphere, Hungary and Russia

US or UK Sanctions on Murdoch’s Fox News Support for Putin’s Russia?

Koch Industries – Putin – Russia – Ukraine – Koch Network – Think Tanks

World Congress Of Families WCF, Russia, The Kremlin, Christian Conservative Nationalists, Dugin, Conservatives and US Evangelicals

Geopolitics – Horseshoe Theory – Russian Invasion of Ukraine – Anglosphere European Far Right and Left

Interesting article from Foreign Policy titled ‘Why America’s Far Right and Far Left Have Aligned Against Helping Ukraine’ from mid 2022 discussing ‘Horseshoe Theory’ which is apparent not just in the US but the Anglosphere and Europe, especially ageing left and far right conservatives who call for appeasement.

On one hand we have those on the right who are complicit or have been compromised including GOP, Trump, Tucker Carlson, FoxNews, UKIP, Nigel Farage, alt right grifters, UK Conservatives, Hungarian PM Orban, Serbia’s Vucic etc. and Koch Network linked think tanks. 

Then on the (US style) ‘left’ we have supposed geopolitical experts, intellectuals or academics of the ageing left calling for appeasement under the guise of abstract ideological arguments, ignorance of events on the ground and calls for negotiation.  These include Kissinger & Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Sachs, Ritter et al., but behind all these are right wing think tanks, networks or links including Nixon-Koch, Charles Koch, Rockefeller Foundation, Rand Paul Institute etc.?

What are some of the commonalities or shared interests? Antipathy towards the EU European Union & pro Brexit, tepid on commitment to NATO, pro fossil fuels, anti-woke, anti-LGBT, pro Christian, anti-immigrant, ‘great replacement’, patriarchy, corruption, low or no regulation, 0.1% given privileges and protection? 

From Foreign Policy:

‘Why America’s Far Right and Far Left Have Aligned Against Helping Ukraine

The discourse surrounding Russia’s war on Ukraine has created strange bedfellows.

By Jan Dutkiewicz, a policy fellow at the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard Law School, and Dominik Stecuła, an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State University.

JULY 4, 2022,

Since Russia attacked Ukraine, unprovoked, on Feb. 24, the discourse surrounding the war that has emerged in the United States has created strange bedfellows. Although the majority of the American public, led by U.S. President Joe Biden, have thrown their support behind Ukraine, many on the left and right alike have rushed to defend Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime or, at the very least, have urged the United States not to intervene in Ukraine’s defense.

Tucker Carlson, the face of Fox News and host of the most popular show on cable news in the United States, has been spouting pro-Kremlin talking points for months (and is frequently rebroadcasted on Russian state television). Other right-wing figures regularly spew out anti-Ukrainian disinformation and rail against sending heavy weapons to the country.

Meanwhile, the luminary of the American intellectual left, Noam Chomsky, has invoked former U.S. President Donald Trump as a model of level-headed geopolitical statesmanship for his opposition to arming Ukraine. Left-wing sources—such as Jacobin, New Left Review, and Democracy Now!—have hewed to a party line that blames NATO expansion for Russia’s invasion and opposes military aid to Ukraine.

Online, armies of left- and right-wing accounts find fault with Ukraine’s politics, policies, and president. In Congress, seven of the most fervent conservative Trump supporters voted alongside progressive champions Reps. Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush against banning Russian fossil fuels; even more surprisingly, Omar and Bush are joined by so-called squad members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib as well as the far-right fringe of the Republican Party in opposing the U.S. government seizing Russian oligarchs’ assets.

All of these developments highlight a bizarre alliance between the two ends of the political spectrum. The question is: Why?

What we seem to be seeing is a modern-day version of the horseshoe theory of politics, where the far left and far right find themselves in uncanny alignment. Although historically maligned, the theory seems to hold remarkably well when it comes to U.S. opinion on the Russia-Ukraine war. This doesn’t have much to do with ideological symmetry, however, or even Russia or Ukraine, for that matter. Rather, it has everything to do with the fraught state of U.S. politics, where relying on simple notions of “left” and “right” or “conservative” and “progressive” no longer serves a useful heuristic for understanding political developments.

The horseshoe theory of politics was introduced by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, who believed that the political ideological spectrum—traditionally construed as a linear progression from some form of socialism or democratic collectivism through a bourgeois-liberal center and on to some form of totalitarianism or fascism—was not a straight line between ever-more-distant political positions but rather something like a horseshoe, with the extremes bending almost magnetically into conjunction with each other.

Based on his observation of the alignment of fascist and communist parties in early 1930s German domestic politics and then on the Nazi-Soviet alignment in the international sphere, perhaps best embodied by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, he believed that the political extremes have much more in common than a traditional interpretation of the political spectrum might suggest….

…Since Russia invaded Ukraine this year, the vast majority of Americans from both parties have supported the U.S. government’s position: They support providing military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and surprisingly, there is even considerable bipartisan support for welcoming Ukrainian refugees to the United States. But Russia has found vocal allies too.

The close ideological and financial relationship between many far-right European parties and the Kremlin is hardly a secret, making their support for Putin’s genocidal campaign par for the course. But considerable elements of the American right, including members of the Republican Party, have openly sided with Russia since the invasion.

The GOP has historically wielded its anti-Soviet (pre-1989) and anti-Russian (post-1989) position to great political effect. This is, after all, the party of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” In 2012, then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Russia the United States’ primary geopolitical foe and a country that “always stands up for the world’s worst actors.” Fast forward to 2022, and Republicans—including Trump; his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; (soon to be former) Rep. Madison Cawthorn; Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance; Fox News personalities, such as Laura Ingraham; and conservative influencers, such as Candace Owens—have all broken from the party line to heap scorn on Ukraine and U.S. efforts to assist it.

A number of tropes that recur in this right-wing critique is the claim that NATO expansion forced Putin’s hand and led to the invasion as well as that money spent on military aid to Ukraine would be better spent on domestic issues, even if those issues include the continued militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, as suggested by Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley….

…When it comes to Ukraine, many tankies have embraced a pro-Moscow position and parroted Kremlin talking points, perhaps failing to disambiguate between Russia, an authoritarian capitalist-oligarchic state, and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, an authoritarian communist state. These positions include the false claim that Ukraine’s 2014 Euromaidan protest movement was a U.S.-backed coup, which has been shared directly by elected officials like DSA-backed New York City council member Kristin Richardson Jordan in the form of links to online tankie disinformation. But similar claims have also been made by QAnon-boosting GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and seemingly serious leading scholars, including Chomsky and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer….

….Mearsheimer’s work is instructive here. A highly influential scholar of international relations, Mearsheimer is known as one of the leading proponents of the “offensive realism” school of analysis of world affairs. This school argues that states, especially great powers, will act rationally to maximize their military power in an anarchic world system, meaning that they are likely to react violently to perceived threats to their security.

Mearsheimer’s most influential contribution to the debate about Ukraine—other than his musings that U.S. support for the 2014 Euromaidan protests constituted a coup—is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was directly caused by NATO’s expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, including its overtures to Ukraine. According to offensive realist analysis, Russia’s attack heads off this U.S.-led expansion. Despite the fact that this theory has been widely challenged since the conflict’s first day, Mearsheimer’s explanation has traveled widely.

He has aired his ideas in a guest column for the Economist and in an interview with the New Yorker, and his work has been mentioned by critics of U.S. policy in Ukraine from think tanks such as the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, whose funding sources include both billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Koch Foundation, and the Koch-funded and Sen. Rand Paul-backed Defense Priorities as well as leftist publications, such as the openly socialist Monthly Review, the tweedy Current Affairs, and the trusty social democratic standby the Nation. Mearsheimer has also been retweeted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs…

….To see leftists conceding that Kissinger has a point and Republicans handing it to Chomsky has been quite something. But, the argument goes, if Chomsky and Kissinger (and Mearsheimer) agree, then they must be right. But they’re not. Putin said so himself when he recently compared himself to Peter the Great, claiming Russia’s right to expand into its previous colonies and dropping the pretense that Western provocations had much to do with his decision to invade Ukraine…..

…For all their disparate political goals and motivations, what unites the far left and far right is their relationship to U.S. politics. What unites them is an opposition to what they perceive as the faults of the status quo, a distrust of the establishment, and crude anti-Americanism.

On the political right, the actions of legislators like Greene, Cawthorn, Rep. Paul Gosar, or Rep. Matt Gaetz—all of whom oppose U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia—seem to be driven by a profound dislike of the United States as an ethnically and racially diverse democracy, a country where Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, is the law of the land (at least, for now).

Many on the far right despise that reality and recognize the ideological proximity of their political goals to what they see as Putin’s accomplishments, including making life extremely difficult for Russia’s LGBTQ community. His general anti-wokeness has been lauded by former Trump advisor and current MAGA influencer Steve Bannon. The Russian propaganda machine has been remarkably well versed in the language of U.S. culture wars, and there is a widespread perception that Putin and Russia are allies to the MAGA wing of the GOP on that culture war front….’

More blog and articles click through Koch Network, Nationalism, Political Strategy & Russia.

Russian Brexit Coup by Putin and Compromised British Conservatives

US or UK Sanctions on Murdoch’s Fox News Support for Putin’s Russia?

Koch Industries – Putin – Russia – Ukraine – Koch Network – Think Tanks

Putin’s Russia – Dugin – Alt Right – White Christian Nationalism – the Anglosphere and Europe

Neo Conservative Rasputins? Putin and Dugin – Trump and Bannon – Johnson, Brexit and Cummings

Growth of Conservative Hard Right Wing or Nativist Authoritarian Regimes

Strange Conservative Political Links – The Anglosphere, Hungary and Russia

Radical Right Libertarian Economics or Social Populism?

Radical right libertarian policies are often grounded in Christianity and nativism, appealing to populist instincts to win elections, especially with ageing constituencies.  Interesting analysis of the US Republican Party or the GOP post Trump Administration moving away from support for corporates i.e. radical right libertarian policies, and moving more towards ‘fake populism’ to entice voters on social issues.

This is not unusual and has been observed elsewhere, more subtly, e.g. Australia under the tutelage of Koch linked Atlas Network think tanks and Fox/NewsCorp, where former Liberal National coalition Prime Minister John Howard was in power from the late ‘90s.   

Howard now says Covid19 is not the time for ideology, but not only were non LNP Conservative states responsible, with agreement of the present LNP government for health and quarantine,  but the national LNP government was able to avoid responsibility, while NewsCorp and related media went on the attack against lockdowns and state leaders.

Begs the question, when is radical right libertarian ideology fit for purpose, if it cannot deal with an epidemic? Why are libertarian policies joined at the hip with populism, white nativism or nationalism, and many confected social issues?

According to Jane Mayer and/or Nancy MacLean it’s because the radical right libertarian policies are so unpalatable that conservative voter coalitions round social issues are needed to allow (quiet) implementation of policy in the background.

‘After Serving Corporations For Decades, GOP Pivots To Fake Populism

Leonard Weinberg 5 May 2021

For many years its liberal and Democratic critics depicted the Republican Party as the party of ‘big business.’ These critics claimed that the GOP’s principal role at both the national and state levels of partisan political activity was to advance the material interests of the country’s large corporate sector.

GOP spokespeople often sought to obscure this reality by appealing to voters based on a defense of American ‘individualism’ (i.e. do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it), by extolling patriotism, especially the country’s military prowess, and by condemning Democratic rivals as ‘soft on communism’ and enemies of traditional American values. Such electoral appeals were successful for much of the last century and well into the present.

For many liberal critics, the linkage between the Republican Party and business, especially large-scale enterprise, was presumptively based on a patron/client relationship. Business leaders were patrons who called the shots, and GOP politicians were clients, ready to do the bidding of captains of business and commerce, with some quibbling now and then, in exchange for a steady stream of financial support.

The relationship between these two key forces in American public life may not be broken, but certainly seems to have become attenuated.  Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), issued a threat: If America’s business leaders don’t stop publicly opposing the Party’s new Georgia election law (restricting access to the polls by the state’s sizeable Black population), they will have to face the consequences.

McConnell and other congressional Republicans went on to criticize ‘big business’ for supporting environmental protection policies and the Democrats’ social agenda, including women’s rights.

What’s going on? And why at this time?

First, consider the socio-political situation of the GOP. One long-time base of voter support appears to be eroding.

Linked to this shift in the outlook of better-educated voters is a profound change in the organization of the American economy.

To a significant extent, the world in which the linkage between ‘big business’ and the Republican Party developed no longer exists. That linkage belongs to an earlier age and so does the rhetoric of its long-standing liberal critics.

Second, the GOP’s electoral base seems to have shifted and aged. Thanks in part to former President Trump’s ability to win the support of ‘low information’ voters–individuals with less than a college education who are particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories– the Republican Party is now shaped by politicians able to give voice to the biases and grievances of this substantial constituency.

This electoral ‘base’ is strongly skewed towards aging white males, particularly those living in small towns and rural areas, whose social values and economic circumstances appear frozen in time. From the point of view of GOP decision-makers, the concern is that over time this ‘base’ will continue to shrink in size, making it progressively more difficult for the Party to win national elections. 

How then can the GOP appeal to a wider spectrum of voters without alienating its current core constituency? The GOP seeks to resolve this dilemma via voter suppression, using state laws to discourage young university students and people of color away from the polls.’

For more blogs about Ageing Democracy, Australian Politics, Conservative, Demography, Libertarian Economics and Populist Politics.