Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a lively debate among readers of the blog about whether Russia is to blame for its actions or whether it was provoked by NATO and the U.S., and whether anyone in the U.S. has the right to criticize Putin because the U.S. has dirty hands in many conflicts (e.g. Vietnam).
Those who say Putin is not to blame for launching a war have been accused of whataboutism. I understood what it means, because I remember long ago debates where any criticism of Stalin was met with “but what about the treatment of Blacks in the South?” The response was intended to defuse the criticism.
Wikipedia has a long entry about this kind of argument.
And John Oliver devoted a show to it in 2017, while Trump was in office. As he shows, Trump was a master of whataboutism. His show serves as a useful primer on whataboutism and trolling, which was another Trump speciality.
Whataboutism is a debating technique that changes the subject and stifles debate. (“Who are you to criticize because you are just as bad, so we can’t discuss your original criticism.”)
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Just finished the book, Twilight of Democracy: The Lure of Authoritarianism, by Anne Applebaum. She mentions a bit about “whataboutism” as a rhetorical strategy to obfuscate and obscure direct questioning on a specific line of argumentation. It’s a good book, yet frightening. Keep up the awesome work, D! 😀
Let’s say you have a neighbor who spends all summer throwing wild parties that last long into the night – often 3 or 4 in the morning – with hundreds of people, outrageously loud music, fireworks and assorted debauchery. All attempts to reason with your neighbor, minimize the noise or at least curtail the hours of these soirees have failed and you have had to endure his noise for months.
Then late in the summer you have a gathering of maybe a couple dozen friends in your back yard in which people are talking and laughing with moderate level music playing until 11:30, which is, admittedly, a half hour past your municipality’s noise ordinance time on weekends.
Your neighbor comes storming over to your place, outraged about the noise emanating from your property. You point out how you have endured his noise all summer. “Whataboutism!” he shrieks.
You are, as mentioned, in violation of your municipality’s noise ordinances. So his previous behavior should, per your argument, have no bearing on the current situation, right? You are in the wrong and he is right.
If your neighbor was obnoxious all summer, threw loud parties, and kept you from sleeping—then you went to the neighbor’s house and killed him, his wife, and his children, do you think your actions are justified?
Perfectly argued, Diane.
Even very conservative commenters, these days, agree that the Second Iraq War was a terrible wrong. A former head of Britain’s MI6 commented that this war simply watered and fertilized the little plants of terrorism around the world. George Tenet, the CIA director at the time, wrote an harrowing autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, in which he details how the Bush Jr. administration fabricated the intelligence to make its case for war. George Will, one of the reigning conservative intellectuals and pundits, is unequivocal about what a horrific mistake this was. It was, under international law, a Crime of Aggression, committed under falsified pretexts, involving ghastly Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes. The so-called Bush Doctrine that attempted to justify preemptive war is in deep disrepute. It is not an established principle of international law. But how well I remember, back then, when I was writing about how evil this Second Iraq War was, those who would come back at me with, but whatabout Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds? The answer to that question, of course, is that this was a Crime against Humanity for which he should have been indicted, tried, and convicted in the International Criminal Court. I doubt seriously, Dienne, that you would accept that that whataboutism excused the Second Iraq War. Why, then, to you think that whataboutism excuses Putin’s savage, brutal attack against the people of Ukraine? This makes no sense to me at all. As CBK makes clear below, you are being inconsistent, Dienne. If it was horrific in the one case, it is horrific in the other, n’est-ce pas?
And, I would like to note, the International Court of Justice called on Russia, days ago, to remove its forces from Ukraine, and Russia is therefore is acting illegally, against the explicit order of the court.
And can you clarify something, Dienne? Do you believe that the world should stand by and let Russia roll over Ukraine because others have done evil things? Do you support what is being done by Russian forces right now in Ukraine? Or do you think that what is happening there is just a breathtakingly grand illusion being perpetrated by the evil West? Every satellite photo of bombed out cities. Every video by journalists of dead bodies. All some sort of elaborate staging by Western Dr. Evils? Inquiring minds want to know.
That said, the use by Hussein of chemical weapons against the Kurds was a Crime against Humanity under international law. And his lobbing of Scud missiles into Israel was a Crime of Aggression. In both cases, under international law, a proportional use of state violence to stop these things from happening was completely justified. So, limited military interventions in both cases were justified, and Hussein should have been tried by the ICC. He was a thoroughly evil guy. All nations must respect the fundamental principle of nonviolation of the territorial integrity of UN member states except in proportional manner in a few limited cases specified in law. I hope that this latest example, in Ukraine, makes this clear to the entire world. This stuff just isn’t OK going forward.
dienne77,
Your analogy is the OPPOSITE of the “whataboutism” that you always use.
A person that you don’t like has a neighbor who you adore and that neighbor who you adore spends all summer throwing wild parties that last long into the night – often 3 or 4 in the morning – with hundreds of people, outrageously loud music, fireworks and assorted debauchery. All attempts to reason with that neighbor, minimize the noise or at least curtail the hours of these soirees have failed and the person you don’t like has had to endure his noise for months.
You lecture to the person that you don’t like who has been enduring this from the person you do like and say to the person you don’t like: “you had some friends over once and you talked and played music until 11:30, a half hour after ordinance, so shut up and let my friend be as loud as he wants every single night until 3am.
The correct analogy for you is that you always give a pass to the neighbor doing the most reprehensible things because you like that neighbor better.
Just like you like Putin better than Biden and you like Trump and the most right wing Republicans better than any Democrat.
Diane: If we don’t turn automatically defensive (a bad habit of liberals), it doesn’t take much to realize that whataboutism is preset to quickly cave in on itself. That is, it goes like this:
Person 1 says: Putin does X (e.g., kills civilians).
Person 2 says: But the United States did X (killed civilians, or whatever).
But by saying so, Person 1 is already suggesting or even admitting that X is wrong, which applies to Putin as well, unless they can give some reason why it’s okay for Putin but not the US.
The fundamental point is that it’s not about WHO does X, it’s about WHAT is done as X, or whether X is right or wrong, acceptable or not. Person 2 tacitly suggests that X is wrong and takes up the idea of the others’ hypocrisy, or the argument from “the pot calling the kettle black.” If that meant anything, then nothing would ever really get cooked.
To put it in the concrete, as a US Citizen, we get no pass on our questionable United States actions and policy, e.g., treatment of native Americans or slaves (or fill in the blank). Nor does the egregious actions of the US excuse Putin’s. The HUGE point is that WE can talk about it and undergo change, slow as it might be.
Whataboutism is SO bogus. We do, however, often see it used in the schoolyard. CBK
Nailed it, CBK. It’s completely self-contradictory. Illogical. And when applied in this case, profoundly immoral.
What is going on in Ukraine now as we speak is too horrific, too bloody to be engaging in whataboutism. Under these circumstances, whataboutism is like a gut punch and collaborationism with a cruel and vicious despot, Putin. Oh wait, what about the jailing and retention of Brittney Griner, just despicable. She is, in essence, being held hostage for some nefarious Putinesque reason. She’s a basketball player not a spy or criminal, release her now, let her go home to her family!
Whataboutism is the New Two Wrongs Make A Right.
exactly
A lot of commenters here correctly criticized the CCSS and their focus on “close reading” because it confines understanding of a work of literature to the “four walls” of the text – only what’s on the page matters. It strips the text of any context as far as the author’s experiences, view or the time period in which s/he was writing. Of course such an approach makes a mockery of the work. For instance, to ignore the McCarthist context of THE CRUCIBLE is to strip it of the warning and social commentary it was intended to convey. I don’t think anyone on this blog would disagree.
Yet claims of “whataboutism” do the same thing – decontextualize events from the geo-political situation and history in which they are happening. It leads to a complete inability to understand or respond appropriately. If there is no relevant history, characters are simply acting randomly, irrationally for no reason beyond vague motivations like “narcissism” or “meglomania”.
But it seems that any historian should understand that historical events necessarily flow from reactions to prior events. For instance, the U.S. didn’t simply decide to attack Japan out of the blue in WWIII – it was a reaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor – no one disputes that.
Stripping the context away from the actions of our enemies may make us feel superior, but it makes us unable to respond properly and, worse, dehumanizes them. We see this now in the ridiculous over-reaction to all things Russian – the firing of an orchestra conductor, the banning of a Russian ballerina, the prohibition on Russian music, literature, vodka, cats, mustard and even dressing (which isn’t even Russia).
Reasonable people can certainly disagree on the nature of the context and whether the context of an action justifies the action, but to deny the context entirely turns the world into a collection of completely noble super heroes battling a bunch of supervillains – something more appropriate to a Marvel movie (and even some of the Marvel movies have had more nuance than that).
Crying “whataboutism” is just a convenient and lazy way to avoid the messy – but very necessary – collection of facts and circumstances relevant to any given situation.
Dienne, you slipped under the wire. When one sovereign nation invaded another much smaller nation, killing thousands of people and reducing its cities to rubble, there is no justification.
Was there justification for America’s illegally and aggressively invading another much smaller nation-Iraq in 2003? Or the many other much smaller nations that the US has invaded since WW2?
Duane, do you support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?
I’ve stated a number of time that I don’t support that illegal, immoral invasion. All war is worse than hell, because the consequences of war are very real for those who have to suffer under it. Hell is imaginary and doesn’t come into play in the very human activity that is war.
See William Blum’s “Killing Hope” for the details of that “adventurism”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Hope#:~:text=From%20Wikipedia%2C%20the%20free%20encyclopedia%20Killing%20Hope%3A%20U.S.,a%20strongly%20critical%20view%20of%20American%20foreign%20policy.
The justification for the First Iraq War was that Iraq had invaded another sovereign UN state, Kuwait. This is a legal justification for military action under international law. See the Security Council Resolution on Nov. 29, 1990. The second one was another matter entirely.
D77: Interesting that you refer to the bombing of Pearl Harbor as being a perfect justification of American action in WWII. My Aunt, who was an isolationist raised on the Nye Committee hearings and the 1920s reaction to the horror of WWI, always accused Roosevelt of backing Japan into a corner an precipitating the attack on Pearl Harbor. She was an interesting lady, my Aunt.
I am not sure if this has anything to do with the discussion. It just reminded me. I come from a very old family, so she was born in 1903.
Well stated, Dienne! Thanks!
I have a note below that is in moderation in response to you and Dienne on this, Duane. I would appreciate your reading it. It addresses this very issue of comparisons of Ukraine to the Second Iraq War.
When it shows up, I’ll read it. I also have a comment in moderation.
Have you read Blum’s “Killing Hope”?
I have not, Duane. Do you think that the United States should not have intelligence services? And do you think that it was OK for Mr. Blum to reveal the names and addresses of 200 CIA employees, putting their lives and those of their families in jeopardy?
Never hinted that the US shouldn’t have intelligence sources, so I’m not sure what you are getting at. Please explain. And I don’t know about that incident. Please link a source. Thanks!
Good. I’m glad to hear that, Duane. You can do a Google search on those revelations yourself. I’m sorry, but revealing such information is traitorous. Be warned, however, that search will take you down a rabbit hole of extremism that makes the rest of us on the left side of the American political spectrum look like the caricatures drawn of us by the extremists on the right.
Dienne, I will say to you what a general recently said to a news anchor who asked militarily sensitive questions that he refused to answer: This is not a freaking video game. This is a war. People are dying, right now. Kids. Grandmas. We can have these discussions after we stop this. As Mr. Wierdl pointed out elsewhere here, if a crazed killer has just burst into your house with a gun and shot one of your kids and is threatening the others, you, and your wife, this isn’t the time to wax tearful about what a terrible childhood the sad, unfortunate killer had.
I have a tendency to totally disregard what generals have to say. Anyone who gets to the top of the world’s largest (and totally unaccountable to anyone) death and destruction machine that is the US Military does not deserve my respect.
It’s a war. . . No shit Sherlock. And it’s wrong, no doubt. Putin, like the leaders of this country should be tried for war crimes. . . and put to death. Those leaders and the generals who implement death and destruction deserve no adulation whatsoever.
Thank you, Duane. I am anti-war. The only “good war” was the war to defeat Hitler and Japanese imperialism. I visited Vietnam in 2018 and was shocked to see that it is “socialist” in name only. Wealthy elites, Tiffany, Mercedes, BMW, etc. Vast inequality and poverty.
So, Duane, let me ask you a question. Suppose that there were no U.S. generals, no U.S. military. Suppose that these just, poof, disappeared into a parallel universe tomorrow. What happens then? Peace and love and folk dances? Or Putin uber alles?
I don’t play such childish games when discussing the very real atrocities that are the results of war.
The only legitimate war is one of immediate self defense as the Ukrainians are doing right now.
I stand by my statement.
That is one of the justifiable uses of force under international law. And it must be proportional. Others include stopping a genocide and stopping the use of prohibited chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. And again, the use of force must be proportional, what is necessary and no more.
There are several ways to secure peace: Enforce international law regarding the rules of war and the use of force, have overwhelming defensive capabilities, and using covert means to remove crazy strongmen from power.
It is impossible to reason carefully about most things with making use of counterfactuals. This is true in conditions of uncertainty, in discussions about possible futures, and in the variety of possible futures discussion in which one discusses the consequences of policies.
With or without making use?
No, doubt that attempting to ascertain the results of future actions, counterfactuals can be used. But bizarre examples like what you asked of me are counterproductive and meaningless.
It makes my point, Duane, that military might is necessary. So, no, it is neither counterproductive nor meaningless.
Military might is necessary?
Tell that to the Costa Ricans.
cx: and use
“The only legitimate war is one of immediate self defense as the Ukrainians are doing right now.”
The Ukrainians are not fighting by throwing rocks and punches. They could not do this without having built up a military force with generals and state of the art weapons.
I am all about peace, love and happily ever afters
but watching Russia invade Ukraine and target innocent civilians….. we can’t just knock on a dictator’s door and put him in jail for war crimes.
If only it were that simple.
They only thing I can do is donate to the cause of Ukrainian refugees…. and pray for NATO leaders as they make difficult decisions.
No one, to my knowledge, is claiming, Dienne that Russia is acting solely out of narcissism and megalomania. People are saying that Russia is acting out of imperialism and seeks to incorporate into itself the resources of Ukraine. Putin laid out his imperialism himself in the paper he published on this subject prior to his brutal, illegal aggression against the country. People ARE saying that the justifications offered by Russia are simply false. There is no genocide in Ukraine. The country is not run by Nazis. It is not a member of NATO. In fact, if Russia did take over Ukraine, it would THEN have NATO countries on all those Southern borders. Ukraine does not have biological and nuclear weapons. It is not, as Putin claims it to be, ONE NATION with Russia. It is a sovereign nation and member of the United Nations. It is not acceptable to invade Ukraine because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has split from the Russian Orthodox Church. It is not acceptable to invade Ukraine because the free people of Donbas had some Pride parades. Diane does not allow on her blog the use of the term that most accurately describes this utter nonsense, these transparent falsehoods. I know that you believe the Russian lies about this stuff because America Is Always Bad and Russia Is Always Good, like something out of the Marvel Comic Universe, but please spare us the long list of articles by extremists that simply amplify those lies.
Meanwhile, babies are being killed in Ukraine, and the number of hapless Russian conscripts dead might be as high as 15,000, all because of a war of choice by Putin.
And your pal Putin could pick up the phone right now and stop this literally criminal invasion utterly.
Is this the post you referenced as being in moderation?
yes
I find that some here will denigrate whatever she writes. Why? Because her ability to see many sides of the story (context) is greater than her critics. Yep, that’s how I see it after having spent the last year seeing a few jump on her like a pack of rabid dogs. I see nothing in what she wrote above that isn’t a cogent analysis.
You claim, Robert that “I know that you believe the Russian lies about this stuff because America Is Always Bad and Russia Is Always Good”. I see nothing in her comment that even hints at your mischaracterization(s) of her responses.
Perhaps because I know Dienne77 outside this realm and have personally spoken with her more than enough to know that your all’s mischaracterizations of her are not right, both in the sense of being incorrect and in the sense of being downright ethically wrong.
Dienne is in moderation because she has written numerous comments about Nazis in Ukraine. Sadly she does not see both sides. In one of the comments of hers that I did not post, she urged Ukraine to surrender asap to avoid bloodshed. I have yet to see a comment from her that defends Ukraine’s right to resist Putin or that condemns Putin’s decision to crush Ukraine. I said I would not post any more comments supporting Putin or his invasion, and all of her comments fall in that direction. She has repeatedly attacked Ukraine, insisting that it’s run by Nazis, and she offers many reasons why the West is responsible for the carnage that Putin is wreaking on innocent men, women, and children, as well as the thousands of young Russian recruits who have died in service to Putin’s ego..
I find that some here will denigrate whatever she writes. Why?
Because it is Russian propaganda. Among the claims that D-77 has made: that Putin invaded Russia because he didn’t want NATO on his borders (Ukraine is not a NATO country; if Russia takes over Ukraine, then it will have NATO countries on its borders.) because Ukraine is run by Nazis (the elected president of Ukraine is a Jew whose family memers fought the Nazis) and because Ukraine has biological weapons labs (the labs in question are research labs dedicated to public health). She has also argued that Ukrainians were bombing their own people, giving as an example the bombed theatre where the words child and children, in large letters visible from the air, were written. This is simply a crazy notion, and there is zero evidence for it, and its source is, of course, Russian propaganda. She then made the preposterous claim that the story had to be false because theatres don’t contain bomb shelters. But, of course, large theatres like this one have enormous storage areas where scenery, properties, costumes, furniture, construction equipment, lumber and other materials, etc., are stored, and it didn’t CONTAIN A BOMB SHELTER but, rather, was being used as a makeshift one by people looking for some place to hide from the Russian assault. I could go on. She made the claim that the protestors at Euromaidan were shot by Western operatives and offered as “evidence” for this Oliver Stone’s film in which he also simply makes the assertion with zero evidence, a film he made after a long, tiresome, clearly propagandistic, sycophantic, toadying love letter of a film about Putin. The UN investigation in the Euromaidan murders concluded that they were done by agents from the Berkut Special Police, and these murders came after many days of brutality by those same police filmed and seen by the entire world, and the Russian puppet who ordered this was expelled by the Ukrainian Rada in a unanimous vote. But I’ll stop there. D-77 has done nothing but amplify Russian lies and propaganda, and that, while this war is going on, is shameful and disgusting. An “ability to see”? That’s completely laughable., or would be if it weren’t so tragic that some will fall for the nonsense that she passes on. She is blinded by extremist ideology from seeing what the rest of the world clearly sees. The UN General Assembly voted 141 to 5 to condemn the unprovoked invasion. The International Court of Justice ruled that Russia must withdraw immediately. Russia is currently, right now, an international scofflaw that has committed the Crime of Aggression and is committing ongoing Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, and D-77 have done nothing but serve as an apologist for this, and I am shocked, Duane, that you would jump aboard this looney train.
Bob, thanks for putting all these comments together. Dienne is a real person. I have met her. She is intelligent but for reasons I don’t understand she has become an amplifier of Putin propaganda. She has never expressed opposition to Putin’s war or to his devastation of Ukraine. All her comments for the past month have sought to defend or rationalize his invasion. This is certainly not seeing “all sides” or “both sides.” I haven’t counted the articles she has sent in hopes of proving that Ukraine is full of Nazis, as Putin says. I got tired of arguing with someone is so certain that Putin’s invasion was justified, and the devastation of Ukraine was fake news.
And, Duane, this was all after she scolded people here for being so idiotic as to believe “Biden’s propaganda” that Putin was going to invade Ukraine, even thought he man had moved 170,000 troops and tanks and personnel carriers to the Ukrainian border and erected field hospitals and sent helicopters to evacuate the wounded to those borders. I said, unequivocally, at the time that he was going to invade and that he would not win and that he was in for a long and bloody insurgency.
And Duane, as she kept repeating Putin’s evolving and transparent lies attempting to justify this brutal invasion and as the bodies of Ukrainian babies and toddlers and grandmothers and pregnant women, as well as those of hapless Russian conscripts who had been told that they were merely going to participate in “exercises” piled up, she kept at this, relentlessly, repeating the lies, and I called this for what it is, shameless and worse.
cx: If Russia were to take over Ukraine, THEN it would have additional NATO countries on its borders.
Another example of Russian propaganda spouted by D-77: She argued that Putin had a legitimate claim because of the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine as described in Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unit of Russians and Ukrainians,” which is a BLATANTLY imperialist screed arguing for the creation of a Greater Russia and for viewing Russia and Ukraine as “one country.” Ask the Ukrainians whether they consider themselves “one country” with Russia. A nation full of ordinary Ukrainian citizens is overwhelmingly fighting his brutal assault force, and the whole world is watching, daily, how crazy the idea that Ukrainians want to be part of Russia is as people give their lives in the fight to keep that from happening. There you have “her ability to see.”
It was Diane who first noted the ludicrousness of the Russian claim that it had to carry out its “special military operation” so that it wouldn’t have NATO on its borders. Of course, if Russia had been successful in its savage takeover of Ukraine, it would have added Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, all NATO countries, on its expanded borders.
Repeating blatantly, transparently false Russian propaganda to justify its crimes is not evidence of an “ability to see many sides of the story (context).” It’s foolishness or worse. And in the context of the slaughter in Ukraine, it is shameful.
Another utterly wild argument that D-77 made, echoing Russian propaganda: that Russia had to conduct its “special military operation” because it couldn’t have nuclear weapons on its border in Ukraine. She likened this to the Cuban Missile Crisis and argued that Russia’s response was as justified as was the U.S. response to Russia’s shipping nuclear missiles in Cuba. A little problem with that argument: Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and NATO does not have nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But Russia, ofc, does have nuclear weapons. So, exactly the opposite is the case. Again, this was a simple repeat, almost verbatim, of a transparently false Russian propaganda point.
Ukraine had a very large nuclear arsenal but gave it up completely when the US and Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees, in 1994. Putin says he is not bound by the 1994 agreement. Because, he says, Ukraine is not a nation. It belongs to Russia. The Ukrainians don’t agree. Nor does the UN.
The gullibility, inability to reason, and parrotlike one-sidedness of this seer of “many sides” is breathtaking.
Totalitarianisms of the left and right are the same ____, different day. Diane doesn’t allow the language I would like to use to describe extremists of the left who make apologies for the likes of Stalin and Putin, who imagine that these despotic systems are workers’ paradises. But all the dictionaries of curse words in various languages I have (I have a little collection of these) would not be up to the task.
You fancy yourself a Social Democrat? Then you better hope that the Social Democracies of Europe have the military wherewithall to stand against the despotic, imperialistic, murderous, looter of his own country. If you don’t, you are simply the despot’s useful idiot.
It is disappointing that Duane won’t acknowledge what is wrong with dienne77’s posts.
The two of them have some similar perspectives, but the differences are enormous.
It is stunning to see Duane’s opinion of dienne77’s writing:
“Because her ability to see many sides of the story (context) is greater than her critics. Yep, that’s how I see it after having spent the last year seeing a few jump on her like a pack of rabid dogs. I see nothing in what she wrote above that isn’t a cogent analysis”
Sorry, but she never sees “many sides” — she sees only the side she likes the best, and demonizes the other side in a way that is truly over the top. To make this a battle of good and evil where Putin is the good and the US is the evil is not just a simple misunderstanding. It is the first step to fascism for a populace to believe that a presentation like dienne77’s sees “many sides of a story”. That’s Orwellian.
I’m in complete agreement with you about this NYCPSP. She shows precisely the opposite of seeing many sides. If he had said that others lack Trump’s ability to see the many sides of the BLM protests, this wouldn’t have been more ludicrous.
It utterly disgusts me that this seer can’t see the devastation that Putin has visited on Ukraine and on Russia. Years of murder of political opponents in Russia by Putin’s secret police. Years of despotic denial of freedom of speech and of the press. Laws against expressing an LGBTQ identity. Doing away with democratic election of members of the Duma and replacing this with elections in which the only choice is to approve Putin appointees. A criminal invasion of a sovereign country in blatant violation of international law. Endless lies about this invasion (We absolutely aren’t going to invade Ukraine; Ukrainians want to be part of the Greater Russian Empire; Ukraine is run by Nazis). Lies to its own conscripts, telling them that they were just going to participate in “exercises.” 3.5 million Ukrainian refuges. 6.5 internally displaced Ukrainians. As many as 15 thousand dead Russian conscripts. Perhaps 8-9 thousand dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians. A beautiful, vibrant, democracy with a magnificent culture relentlessly bombed. Cities and villages reduced to rubble. Homes, schools, theatres, hospitals, infrastructure ruthlessly destroyed. Cutting off of heat and food supplies in wintertime. Firing upon and bombing supposed humanitarian corridors. Bombing an improvised civilian shelter in the basement of a theatre clearly marked with gigantic letters in Russian reading Child and Children. The whole world sees this evil for what it is. All except a few looney “seers” that claim to be of the American left but do nothing put sing the praises of the fascist Putin and of Putin’s dog, Trump. It is precisely such people who feed the caricature in the American mind of those of us who support Social Democratic reforms like universal single-payer health insurance so widespread on the right. Is there any decent human in the world who is not, now, right now, weeping for the people of Ukraine, the victims of these crimes, their children murdered, their homes destroyed, their democracy threatened, for these valiant people standing against a despot’s imperial ambitions?
Well said, Bob. Powerful. True.
Putin is a murderer and a thief of his own country’s wealth. And every soul who passes in Ukraine is another murder on his bloody little hands.
Think of this. You mark the makeshift shelter in a theater “Child” and “Children” in hopes that you can put your kids there, and they will be safe, that the invader will show compassion, decency, humanity. And they bury your children under the rubble of what was once a great cultural institution. There are no words equal to this evil.
Whataboutism is indeed a lame attempt to deflect from whatever topic is being discussed; it’s a bipartisan strategy – alas, almost everyone sometimes resorts to it.
Yesterday I made plain my opposition to Putin’s cruel invasion of Ukraine. I wrote: “I condemn without reservation the Russian invasion of Ukraine: completely unprovoked, in no way justified, the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure being an utter evil.”
However, long before the recent Russian invasion numerous foreign policy professionals cautioned against Ukraine becoming part of NATO. Among these experts were George Kennan and Henry Kissinger, neither of them known to be doves regarding the Soviet Union/Russia. It’s worth reading the Washington Post op-ed written by Kissinger in 2014 that is imbedded within the piece linked below. The Russian fear of encirclement – however irrational it appears to Americans – was written about many times during the Cold War years, with numerous left-wing academics blaming the U.S. for the Cold War on just these grounds of Russian fear of encirclement.
View at Medium.com
There have been voices, including Kennan’s 1998 assertion that Russian relations have been mishandled. These have a certain merit, obviously, and their discussion is of great importance for us. However, there is a matter of timing. Those who pointed out the huge mistake of the Treaty of Versailles at the close of WWI were wise to hold their opinions for another day while the Huge mistake Hitler was handled in the matter which lay at hand. It is notable that the treaty at the close of WWII did not include the punitive nature of Article 231 and the reparations clause of the Versailles Treaty.
Perhaps we can mend whatever ways we need to mend when this has passed. Meanwhile, we better do what you have done above: to actively condemn the Russian invasion. When it is all over, we can use the ideas we need from history to formulate a good response.
Roy, I wish you had been my high school history teacher. I’m so glad you add your wisdom to this blog.
Thanks for the compliment. I just wish I had the same affect on high school freshmen.
Oh Roy! You are building the foundations for what become much wiser upperclassmen. Even they roll their eyes at the freshman babies. They are still growing. All you need to do is try to head them in the right direction. If they look and act even a little bit differently than those first few weeks of high school when they leave you in June, you can count the year a success. (You did give me a chuckle.)
However this war ends, Russia will still be “encircled,” so Putin will have to invade Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.
The fear of “encirclement” is premised on the belief that Russia will always be a hostile nation, not a normal nation.
Putin has revived Stalinism. Every former satellite must now build up their military to protect against Russian aggression and Putin’s lust to restore the USSR.
And the USSR, if you believe Kennan, was just behaving as the Czar had always done. Those pigs start to look like those men, huh Orwell?
Nailed it, Diane!
How about Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden, and Switzerland, Jack? Do you think that they should be refused membership in NATO, should they request it, having the horrifyingly instructive example of Russian expansionism into Ukraine before them?
I think Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Switzerland should receive NATO membership if they request. Of those, I think Finland is both most in need, and most problematic.
I think NATO members Greece and Turkey have some business to attend to before Cyprus is considered.
I agree.
Bob, in my comment I did not state my personal opinion about Russia’s alleged fear of encirclement; I noted that that alleged fear had been cited by many people on the Left in the post-WW2 era. I was in college in the late 1970s, and that supposed fear was the typical reason for academics and other writers on the Left to blame the U.S. – not the Soviet Union – for the Cold War.
The fear of encirclement – such as it was – was really a fear of Russia being invaded from the west, as happened with Napoleon and, of course, much more recently with Hitler. The rationale for the Soviet Union to control eastern Europe was to provide a buffer between the Soviet Union and potential invaders.
Whatever justification the encirclement fear had in the 1940s and 1950s was eliminated forever in the 1960s when the Soviet Union attained nuclear parity with the U.S. It is inconceivable to informed, rational thinkers that any country bordering the Soviet Union pre-1989, and now bordering Russia, would attack Russia. Russia’s nuclear weapons ensure that an offensive attack by bordering countries will NEVER happen. Even the evil Putin knows that, which is why the fear of encirclement holds no validity at all in 2022 and makes the current invasion of Ukraine completely unjustified.
I’m OK with the countries you mentioned joining NATO; it’s understandable why they would want to do so. It would be gratifying to see the many moral preeners in hitherto neutral Sweden abandon their self-perceived moral superiority and acknowledge that the U.S., while imperfect, can still be a force for good in the world.
Well said, Jack! Entirely agreed.
Finland is 99% dependent on Russia for its oil and gas. It may want to look to Norway for a safer way to heat its homes.
If whataboutism was acceptable, coaches would be out of job, since they cannot do most of the stuff they demand from the athletes under their care.
Excellent analogy, Máté!
Perhaps “hypocrisy” is a better word to describe the U.S. government’s willingness to point fingers at others for actions it commits repeatedly throughout the world. (Chris Hedges has written about this in an article published today, March 24.)
James, are you saying we should not help Ukraine because of what the US has done elsewhere? Classic whataboutism. Do you really support Putin’s obliteration of Ukraine? Will you cheer when he installs a puppet government that rules by force? Will you applaud when Putin orders the murder of Zelensky, his wife and children?
I am certainly glad the United States, hypocritical as they might have been during World War II, floundering in the throes of White Supremacy, blood dripping from the throats of the Native Americans, still was able to do away with Hitler.
After they did, the same generation began the difficult process of repentance, turning away from the sin that had contributed to the rise of Hitler. Their sins remained manifold, and perhaps we reap what we have sown.
But Ukraine is now. And Putin is wrong. Nor does he care.
I am certainly glad the United States, hypocritical as they might have been during World War II, floundering in the throes of White Supremacy, blood dripping from the throats of the Native Americans, still was able to do away with Hitler.
Yes, yes, yes!
Great response Roy, thank you. I am getting so damn tired of these whataboutism snarks while Ukrainians are being decimated hour by hour.
“Chris Hedges has written about this in an article published today, March 24.”
So the US cannot oppose any war till the end of time? Well, let’s have a long discussion about this because it’s more important than ending the war in Ukraine.
Always appreciative, Dr. Wierdl, of the wisdom and clear thinking of your posts. Thank you.
Mate: The perfect storm we are in consists of (1) the put-off but inevitable conflict between two political structures that, at their respective foundations, are 180 apart from one another: democracy and authoritarianism/totalitarianism; (various forms and degrees); and
(2) Putin’s emergent psychology and his utter misreading of history and his place in it.
The Problem of Putin, then, is exacerbated by leaders on the other side who fail to understand early on that potential . . . that is not guaranteed but is setup for inevitability . . . and that, through good leadership over time, is either invited or even provoked, or held off while putting in place intelligent on the ground realities that will foster qualified change. CBK
ADDENDUM to my note to Mate: China is another example of the foundational conflict, but with totally different specifics. CBK
Excellent analogy, Máté!
Whataboutism reminds me of a joke a friend told me over a campfire in the Sierras one night in early summer.
I doubt that I’ll get it correct but here goes:
Two Buddhist monks are traveling by foot and reach a river. To cross the river, they have to swim.
When they arrived, there was a young, attractive woman standing there staring at the rushing water and she asked the Buddhist monks to help her cross because she couldn’t swim.
The older monk tells the attractive young woman to climb on his back.
The younger monk is shocked because they have both taken a vow of celibacy and that includes no contact with women. He reminds the older monk who just shrugs.
After they swim cross the river, the older monk sets the woman down and the Buddhists continue their journey. She goes her way. They go theirs.
The young monk keeps complaining about the odder monk breaking his vow.
Eventually, the older monk says, “Why are you still carrying that woman. That happened hours ago.”
Yes, the US is guilty of atrocities. I suspect that if we dig deep enough into any country’s history, well find every country is guilty of atrocities at one time or another.
The Church’s Crusades are history
The Church’s inquisitions are history.
The Salem witch trials are history
The US wars with native Americans in the 19th century are history
Vietnam is history.
Iraq is almost history since we still have troops there.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not history. It’s happening right now in the present.
So, why are whataboutism people still carrying history around with them, when we all should be living in the present and doing what we can to make life better for not only ourselves but each other?
If we want to end atrocities so they do not become history, then we must act to stop them when they are happening. And better yet, before they happen.
In other news, Ted Cruz’s utterly unfounded treatment of Ketanji Brown Jackson yesterday looked to me a lot like hate crime. And after this shameful display, the slimeball Cruz was checking his Twitter to see the points he had scored with his racist supporters.
There are parasitic wasp larvae with a more highly developed moral compass than Ted Cruz has.
She prevailed however. She came out looking all the better and they (Cotton, Hawley, Cruz) all the worse.
She was masterful. So brilliant. So poised. So articulate. So careful and calm and reasoned. It’s interesting to compare her under fire to, say, the CaveMan whose name cannot be mentioned on WordPress, evidently.
The conservative take on this exchange is that she is too stupid to define a woman and does not know when life begins. She was shown to be a fraud. So it goes on our body politic. Different realities.
I agree Bob. I thought she emanated goodness, thoughtfulness and intelligence.
You nailed this, Ginny. She is an impressive person! Cotton, Hawley, Cruz–don’t get me started on these slimebags.
Major news organizations and journalist talking heads are REPEATEDLY revealing in stories and interviews information of use to the Russian military in its unprovoked, criminal attack upon Ukraine. I just read yet another of many, many examples of this in a national NBC story. This is an ENORMOUS problem that news organizations need to address. Many news organizations are doing what the idiot TikTok-er did when he posted video of Ukrainian military vehicles parked near a shopping mall that the Russians then obliterated with shelling. THIS NEEDS TO STOP! Yes, report on the war, but freaking vet what you are doing to ensure that no information useful to the other side is being revealed!!!
I know what my dad would say when I asked “whatabout” my friends up the street. I also know what George Bush said when asked about the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. And what Adam said when asked about that apple. Must be human nature?
Well said, Mr. Jordan.
Well, here we go again when you allow the whatabout mafia back into the discussion. The Ukrainian tragedy is thrust aside, marginalized so we can talk about the crimes and sins of the USA. The whatabout gang don’t seem to give a flying damn about the Ukrainians who are being butchered and dismembered by the Russians. We have to shut up about that because of the My Lai massacre, which was also a crime against humanity and the use of agent orange all over Vietnam. The list goes on and on but the Ukrainians are still dying because of a despot and mass murderer, Putin. Now I see why Greg and Joel are bailing out of this crap fest. Did D-77 or Duane say anything yet about Ukraine?
I understand your anger, Joe; In the current context, with these war crimes underway, with Mariupol reduced to an ash pit, the Putinism from some Americans is shameful in the extreme. An d sickening. Morally contemptible. But I respectfully submit that this is how democracy works. In Russia under Stalin’s Mini-Me, people can go to prison for 15 years for calling the invasion of Ukraine a war. Here, people stand up in the Agora and say stupid s__t (“Ukraine is ruled by Nazis”) and they are shouted down because in a free interchange of ideas, the truth will out. Candidate Trump can say, “I have not business in Russia,” and someone else can quote back at him Donald Trump, Jr.: “In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets” and Eric Trump: “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”
Trumping the Truth
Oct. 17, 2013. Trump says to David Letterman that Putin is a “tough guy” and that he [Trump] “met him once.”
May 27, 2014
Trump says at the National Press Club, “I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.”
Oct. 6, 2015. Michael Savage asks Trump if he has met Vladimir Putin. “Yes,” Trump says. “Yes, a long time ago. We got along great, by the way.”
Nov. 10, 2015. Trump, in a presidential debate, says, “I got to know him (Putin) very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes.’ We were stablemates, and we did very well that night. ”
May 5, 2016. Bret Baier asks Trump if he has ever spoken to Putin, and Trump says, “Yeah, but I don’t want to comment because . . . let’s assume I did. Perhaps it was personal. You know, I don’t want to hurt his confidence.”
July 27, 2016. Trump says at a news conference, “I never met Putin. I don’t know who Putin is. . . . I never met Putin.”
Joe Jersey,
I promise no more from the whatabout mafia.
After my above comment, Duane did make comments against Putin and about the horror of the Ukraine war but not D-77.
Chris Hedges – I used to be a huge fan of his, 100% rah, rah, rah for Chris. Brilliant, articulate, on point. Now, I’m having serious doubts and questions. Yes, so much of what he says is absolutely true and at least he does mention the slaughter in Ukraine, he acknowledges the crimes of Putin and that he should be brought before the international criminal court. Then he questions why we don’t have the same concern for the Palestinian, Iraqi or Yemeni victims as we do for the Ukrainians. OK, valid point, but that does not mean we should just stand by and let the Ukrainians be slaughtered. Not to mention that Putin is threatening nuclear war and wants to annex Ukraine.
Chris Hedges – snippet from a huge essay of his at sheerpostdot com, 3-7-22: QUOTE All of this remains unspoken as we express our anguish for the people of Ukraine and revel in our moral superiority. The life of a Palestinian or an Iraqi child is as precious as the life of a Ukrainian child. No one should live in fear and terror. No one should be sacrificed on the altar of Mars. But until all victims are worthy, until all who wage war are held accountable and brought to justice, this hypocritical game of life and death will continue. Some human beings will be worthy of life. Others will not. Drag Putin off to the International Criminal Court and put him on trial. But make sure George W. Bush is in the cell next to him. If we can’t see ourselves, we can’t see anyone else. And this blindness leads to catastrophe. END QUOTE
Joe Jersey I also like a bunch of what Chris Hedges says. But I also have to wonder sometimes if he thinks you get noise when only one hand is clapping. CBK
Whataboutism?
This doesn’t even make sense because Putin attacked first.
If anything, these hypocrites would be attacking Putin for every argument he gave for attacking Ukraine!
They ONLY make the “whatabout” argument against the people that they hate! Never against the people they love!
I don’t hear any of these folks criticizing Putin and telling him that he has no business in Ukraine! Never a “whataboutism” directed at Putin’s rationale for annihilating families in Ukraine. On the contrary, they repeat that justification as if Putin can do anything and he is exempt from any “whataboutisms” from his hypocritical American fans.
I like my analogy better. The neighbor is very very very annoying, so you walk into his house and kill him and his family.
What about how he annoyed you nightly?
Perfectly said. Perfectly argued, Diane.
Diane,
Your analogy was definitely better. My post was intended to be a reply to the anti-Putin poster, but I failed to write a cogent comment in any case. I am glad you and others are making far better replies!
Russia has worked extremely hard to export its variety of fascism to the United States, and it has been extremely successful in this–sending agents to support gun nuts here, running a disinformation campaign to get Putin’s dog, Trump, elected. NATO is a defensive alliance. It is the bulwark against totalitarian encroachment upon the democratic states of Europe. And that’s why Putin and his dog, Trump, have opposed it.
The great ABC News reporter Rachel Scott asked Putin during the June 16, 2021 summit in Geneva why all his political opponents end up “dead, in prison, or poisoned.” Putin’s response is really telling and really chilling:
“The organization in question [Navalny’s] has publicly called for riots and public disorder. It has openly instructed people on how to make Molotov cocktails, so it’s to use them against the law enforcement. It called for the participation of underage persons in riots. America has just recently gone through a, well, grievous chain of events after a certain African American individual was killed, and an entire movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, appeared. I’m not going to go into details. I will spare you them. But we’ve seen pogroms. We have seen looting and violations and riots. We sympathize with the Americans, but we do not want the same thing. To happen on the Russian soil, and we’ll do anything possible to prevent this. And it’s not about me fearing anything.”
Scott: You didn’t answer my question, sir. If all you political opponents are dead, in prison, poisoned, doesn’t that send a message that you do not want a fair political fight?
Putin: Alright, about my opponents being jailed or imprisoned. People went into US Congress with political demands. 400 people are now facing criminal charges. They are facing prison terms of up to 20, maybe 25 years. They are called home-grown terrorists. They are being accused of many other things. 70 people were arrested right there on the spot. 30 of them are still arrested. On what grounds? Not quite clear. I mean, none of the official authorities in the United States are informing us about it. “
I’ll spare you the rest. He doesn’t answer the question. But he implies a justification: keeping rioting from happening. He attacks the sort of freedom of speech and assembly that we have in the United States, specifically, the Black Lives Matter movement, and he deflects the question a second time and goes into a totally disingenuous claim that it is the US that suppresses dissent because we have arrested the people who tried to disrupt the certification of a free and fair democratic election.
This is a fascist talking. A man who murders and jails his opponents, prohibits freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and engages in equivocation and doubletalk. A man (I use the term loosely) who exports his brand of fascism to other countries, including ours.
Bob, excellent dissection of Putin duplicity.
Another claim often made in the posts D-77 makes is that the color revolutions were abetted by the CIA. I should freaking hope so. Otherwise, they would not be doing their duty and the decent thing–supporting emerging and struggling democracies. Sometimes we get it right.
Slava Ukraini!
Bob: Thanks for posting this . . . so telling of a twisted mind. CBK
Catherine, if you want to hear some major psychopathic lunacy, check out this from Aleksandr Dugin:
He argues that the truth is whatever you get people to believe and that Russia is in Syria not because it cares about Syria but because it must fight to the death to show that the United States is not the master of the world. A paranoid nutcase.
Under the heading of the good Russians who oppose Putin’s war: From the guardiandotcom, 3-7-22 – Yelena Osipova, an elderly activist who is said to have survived the infamous wartime siege of Leningrad, was marched away by a group of police in St Petersburg while she protested against the war in Ukraine. Thousands of people have been defying police threats and staging protests across Russia. Authorities have a low tolerance for demonstrations and marches, and attending them can have serious consequences including fines, arrests and even imprisonment. end quote
Yelena is 77, a very tiny and frail woman who was carrying anti-war signs. She was led away by several police just for protesting, just for carrying antiwar signs. She was later released, I saw her interview on BBC.
Such bravery! A hero!