Sunday, April 03, 2022

Viktor Orbán’s New “Pro-Refugee” Stance Is Opportunistic — and Still Racist

Ahead of today’s Hungarian election, Viktor Orbán has boasted of his solidarity with Ukrainian refugees. The anti-immigrant premier has folded to public sympathy for Ukrainians — but the welcome doesn’t extend to everyone fleeing war.


Refugees from Ukraine waiting to disembark at Hungary’s Záhony train station. 
(Courtesy of author)


BY ERIN O’BRIEN
JACOBIN
04.03.2022

On March 3, a week after Russia invaded Ukraine, Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán traveled to his country’s frontier with Ukraine to meet arriving refugees. In the small border town of Beregsurány, he visited makeshift refugee camps and shook hands with Ukrainians fleeing the war, as well as the Hungarians helping them.

“Nobody will be left uncared for,” Orbán told the gathered journalists.

He praised volunteers’ work and said Hungary would help to both resettle Ukrainian refugees and return home those from “third countries” such as India and Nigeria — whether they wanted to go or not.

Hungary has, up till now, been anything but a haven for refugees. As the leader of the ultraconservative Fidesz party, leading the government since 2010, Orbán has overseen a domestic policy that disparages refugees and migrants, employing racist epithets and stereotypes to justify their exclusion. Orbán and Hungarian authorities have been especially brutal toward the mostly Muslim migrants arriving in the aftermath of wars in Syria and Afghanistan — repeatedly calling them “invaders” and “a poison.”

Just weeks before Orbán shook hands with Ukrainians fleeing war, refugees from Morocco and Afghanistan were illegally beaten and pushed back from the Hungarian-Serbian border while trying to enter Europe via the Balkan route. Orbán has also overseen the construction of a razor-wire fence along that same border — finding much to agree on with Donald Trump and his call for a border wall.

Orbán’s policy on Ukraine might thus be read as a seismic policy shift. However, when analyzed in the context of his former policy and today’s general election, it becomes clear that this is a continuation of his previous racist policy — while also trying to distract from his ties to Vladimir Putin.
Racist Response

As prime minister, Orbán has overseen one of the most brutal and racist responses to Europe’s “refugee crisis.” At the height of the conflict in Syria and Iraq in 2015, refugees came to Europe from those countries in unprecedented numbers. An estimated 1 million people took the Balkan route into Western Europe through Turkey, where most ended up staying. Some continued on dangerous routes to Bulgaria or Greece, and finally into Eastern Europe through countries like Hungary.Just weeks before Orbán shook hands with Ukrainians fleeing war, refugees from Morocco and Afghanistan were illegally beaten and pushed back from the border.

Orbán solidified his rule, and the power of his Fidesz party, through the vilification of these migrants. In 2015, Hungary built a razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia, and images of migrants living in squalid conditions in Hungarian refugee camps circulated widely on social media. Authorities were even filmed throwing food at migrants, as if into a pen.

These real examples of abuse were coupled with equally abusive rhetoric and propaganda. In the lead-up to a referendum on immigration in 2016, posters plastered around Budapest linked migrants to the Paris terror attacks and violence against women. One posted in the capital superimposed a stop sign over an image of a crowd of non-white men and boys.

“Did you know that since the start of the immigration crisis, harassment of women has increased in Europe?” another government poster read.


Also in 2016, his government unilaterally legalized the pushback of refugees — the practice by which police are allowed to physically repel those seeking asylum at the Hungarian border. Pushbacks violate the European Convention of Human Rights, to which Hungary has been a party since 1992.

These practices have continued even as the number of migrants arriving from the Middle East has ebbed, largely as a result of the EU’s deal with Turkey deal to keep migrants in that country, effectively outsourcing border control. This winter, according to reporting by Al Jazeera, migrants were continually pushed back along the Syrian border, with some violently beaten by police.

One Moroccan migrant reportedly had his hands tied behind his back and was forced to the ground and kicked by police in Hungary. Just one week before the war broke out, over one hundred migrants were living in an abandoned milk factory in frigid, squalid conditions near the Serbian-Hungarian border after being denied entrance to Hungary.
A Different Kind of Migrant

However, this war — and the ensuing migrant crisis — is different. Where the influx of mostly Muslim, non-white migrants from the Middle East allowed Orbán to harden his xenophobic, far-right base, Hungary is now facing a war in a bordering country and the arrival of hundreds of thousands of mostly white women and children. Locals are sympathetic, and Ukrainian refugees a cause célèbre.

Orbán has shifted his campaign for the April 3 election to reflect this. Where, in the weeks leading up to the Russian invasion, his central focus was on anti-LGBT sentiment and “traditional values,” with Ukraine and Russia figuring nowhere in his and Fidesz’s platform, the crisis has now come to the fore. Posters plastered around Budapest and campaign rhetoric now present Orbán as a safe choice for Hungarians and a champion for those fleeing the war, whereas the opposition is cast as warmongering.

“The opposition has lost its mind,” Orbán told supporters at an election rally. “They would walk into a cruel, protracted, and bloody war and they want to send Hungarian troops and guns to the front line. We can’t let this happen. Not a single Hungarian can get caught between the Ukrainian anvil and the Russian hammer.”

The explanation for this is partly political — recent polling by International IDEA shows Fidesz still in the lead, but with its 41 percent score only giving it a narrow advantage over the combined opposition of 39 percent. Support for Ukrainians in Hungary is also now widespread, with many civilians and civil society organizations mobilizing to help the influx of refugees. Support for Transcarpathian ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine also gels with Orbán’s nationalist base.

The other explanation is that the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees does not run counter to Orbán’s xenophobic position on migrants. These are, in the main, white, Christian, non-Muslim refugees. Yet Roma refugees, for example, are being subjected to harsh treatment. Speaking at the border on March 3, Orbán claimed he can “tell the difference between who is a migrant and who is a refugee.”

“Migrants are stopped. Refugees can get all the help,” he said, justifying the seeming dissonance in his previous and current stance. Muslim refugees are migrants, in other words; Ukrainian refugees are recognized as such and provided with support. Emphasizing the difference between the two groups enables Orbán to curry public favor while not compromising his hardline stance on Muslim, non-white migrants. The experience of Muslim migrants on the Serbian border confirms this.
Eastern Opening

On March 7, at the train station in the Hungarian border town of Záhony, a railway worker ceremoniously removed a meter-high portrait of Vladimir Lenin from the station and placed it in the back of a pickup truck. Standing before a crowd of reporters, he said that the station no longer had use for the portrait and would use the room concerned for refugees.

Orbán’s shift toward sympathy for Ukrainian refugees has also been a means to distract from his ties to Putin and Russia itself. Orbán first came to the fore of Hungarian politics as a young rebel leader in the late 1980s, famously calling on Soviet troops to leave his country. He rose in popularity as a stanch anti-Soviet, anti-Russian, anti-communist leader who hoped to bring Hungary closer to the West.

In the early years of his career, he emphasized that Hungary’s closest allies were the United States, NATO, and West European countries, while intentionally distancing Hungary, and himself, from Russia and other post-Soviet states. However, over three decades in politics, Orbán has shifted his attitude toward and relationship with Russia.

In 2009, Orbán paid a friendly public visit to Saint Petersburg to meet with Putin and “get to know him” for the first time. Just before he was reelected as premier in 2010, members of Orbán’s inner circle reportedly visited Moscow to strengthen business and political ties between the two countries.

A rail employee removes the portrait of Vladimir Lenin formerly hanging in the Záhony train station. (Courtesy of author)

Following his reelection, Orbán displayed a markedly friendlier approach to Russia. Initially, Fidesz dubbed its policy an “eastern opening,” not explicitly mentioning Moscow. However, according to reporting by Hungarian investigative outlet Direkt36, Orbán and his allies saw a closer alliance with Moscow — and Putin — as a way of bettering Fidesz’s standing both domestically and globally.

“Orbán’s power and popularity depend on his relationship with Russia,” said Szabolcs Panyi, an investigative journalist at Direkt36 who has long worked on Orbán’s ties to Russia.

This manifested itself in softer rhetoric towards Moscow and greater animus toward the “West.” Where before, the USSR was the great adversary against which Orbán united his base, he now increasingly accused Brussels of coming for Hungary. “We refused to be dictated by Vienna in 1989 as well,” he said in a speech in 2011. “Nor will we let anyone dictate us from Brussels or from anywhere else.”


The most distinct turning point in Orbán’s stance on Russia came on January 14, 2014, when he announced — from Moscow, accompanied by Putin — that Hungary would acquire a nuclear power plant from Russia with the support of a €10 billion loan from that country, to be paid off over thirty years.

The eight years since then have only seen the further entanglement of Russian and Hungarian business, political, and security interests. Hungary has become a hub for Russian intelligence activity in Europe, and Orbán’s is the only executive in the EU that has not quit International Investment Bank, known as the Russian government’s “trojan horse.”

This relationship has trickled down even to the metro cars purchased by Budapest in 2017. According to reporting by Hungarian outlets, Russian officials were involved in mobilizing against the city’s young transport minister to sideline him and usher through a €200 million deal to buy used Russian railcars. Despite better deals offering more up-to-date technology, the city — under pressure from interests linked to Orbán and his party — purchased the Russian cars for its M3 metro line. They have malfunctioned since being put into operation.

Ties with Putin have also enabled Orbán to ensure low-price energy for households via Russia’s state-owned Gazprom, also helping him inspire a more favorable view toward the Kremlin among his supporters.

Just three weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin hosted Orbán in Moscow, where the Hungarian leader requested, among many things, an expansion of his country’s fifteen-year contract with Gazprom amid rising energy prices in Europe.

Orbán and his government maintained this pro-Russia stance as Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s borders this winter and through the first weeks of the war. State-run channels — which investigative journalist Szabolcs Panyi says are essentially propaganda for Orbán’s government — echoed Russian claims, among others, that Russia was clearing Ukraine of Nazis.

However, as public sentiment turned in favor of Ukrainians and the April 3 election neared, Orbán and his followers were forced to fall in line, both with the people of Hungary, who mobilized widespread support for Ukrainian refugees, and with their European counterparts.

Enter a confused government message and position that expressed sympathy with refugees while failing to condemn Russia or cut ties with Putin’s inner circle. As of mid-March, Panyi said, the government hadn’t figured out its messaging.

“I think that the Hungarian government still hasn’t found its message and how to relate to this conflict,” Panyi said. “For example, when the invasion started on Thursday and Friday, Orbán gave an interview. He talked for about thirty minutes about the conflict, but he did not mention Russia or Vladimir Putin.”

Certainly, the government’s actions run counter to its supposed pro-Ukrainian migrant stance. As European allies have taken steps to sever energy and economic ties to Russia, Hungary has demurred. After speaking about the importance of Ukraine’s “territorial integrity” following the Russian invasion, Orbán said on March 3 that his country would not veto EU sanctions on Russia. The integrity of the EU was paramount, he said. However, last week Hungary rejected sanctions on Russian energy shipments, saying it would “endanger Hungary’s energy security.” Such sanctions would also directly threaten Orbán’s low-cost utility scheme, central to his bid to stay in power after today’s election. Hungary is also not supplying arms to Ukraine or allowing the transit of weapons to the country through its territory.

Politicians in Poland and the Czech Republic have sharply criticized Orbán’s failure to cut ties with Russia over the war in Ukraine and for his comparatively muted refugee response. “The Hungarians must be punished for their pro-Russian stance,” tweeted Krzysztof Gawkowski, leader of the parliamentary group for Poland’s left-wing party Lewica. These comments came as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia each declined invitations to a Budapest summit to discuss Hungary’s position. The Czech defense minister even accused Hungarian politicians of finding “cheap Russian oil more important than Ukrainian blood.”
Welcome for Some

Orbán’s tempered stance toward Russia suggests that his attitude towards Ukrainian refugees is a rhetorical shift — seeking to curry favor and votes in the lead-up to today’s election, which is more contested than usual. But the hollowness of his new “pro-refugee” stance is also echoed in the experience of citizens of African countries fleeing Ukraine and now stuck in Záhony.

When I was in this town on Hungary’s border with Ukraine on March 7, I spoke to a young doctor from Zimbabwe named Chennai. She had been at the Hungarian Reformed Church reception center for several days and looked at me with surprise when I asked her what her plan was.

“I have no plan,” she said, “Maybe I will go to America.”

She and her boyfriend had been told by Hungarian authorities that they could be resettled back to Zimbabwe, but were not given work or resettlement options in the country. When we met in the school-turned-refugee-center, she said she was waiting for a bus — any bus — to Europe. She’d heard that there were shortages of medical staff there and in the United States, and thought she might be able to find work.


Where Ukrainian people were immediately offered aid and work opportunities in the country, she and her partner were offered little. The only people left at the reception center when we spoke were Chennai, her boyfriend, and several Nigerian refugees who, like Chennai, had fled Kharkiv. None of them wanted to go home, but none knew where else they could go — and they certainly did not intend to stay in Hungary.

Orbán’s shift and the welcoming of Ukrainian refugees have not forced him to shift his racist stance toward non-white refugees, nor cut any of his long-standing ties with Putin. In other words, he’s playing the welcoming host while remaining a beneficiary of Russia’s energy and security infrastructure. If, as many observers are already doubting, today’s elections are fair, they will show whether his ruse has worked.

With thanks to Flora Garamvolgyi for her help with reporting.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Erin O’Brien is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul, Turkey, covering politics and culture.

Stellantis announces hundreds more job cuts at Belvidere, Illinois plant, as layoffs continue to roil global auto industry

Stellantis NV, the world’s fourth-largest automaker, is planning to cut hundreds more jobs at its Belvidere assembly plant in northern Illinois, according to a letter sent to workers by United Auto Workers Local 1268 on March 25.

Exterior of Belvidere Assembly (WSWS Media)

A Stellantis spokesman told local news station WREX that the company was “making additional staffing reductions to operate the plant in a more sustainable manner.” The cuts will be achieved through a combination of early retirement packages and involuntary layoffs, the company said.

The Belvidere factory, which produces the Jeep Cherokee SUV, has already suffered thousands of layoffs over the past three years, with five rounds of job cuts in the last 13 months alone. The plant is currently operating with 1,812 hourly workers on just one shift. As recently as 2019, the plant, then operated by Stellantis’ predecessor Fiat Chrysler, had more than 5,000 workers across three shifts.

Stellantis is seeking to reduce employment at Belvidere to “603 non-skilled and 199 skilled trades employees,” the UAW local wrote in its March 25 letter to workers. The company was planning to issue WARN layoff notices to 579 employees beginning March 28, the letter stated, raising the question of whether more cuts are planned later this year to reach the company’s targeted headcount. The layoffs will impact those even with decades of seniority at the plant, as far back as 1994.

Beyond Stellantis, the layoffs will almost certainly cascade throughout the local supply chain, threatening jobs at plants operated by parts producers such as Magna, Syncreon, and Android Industries, as well as others.

Seeking to chloroform workers and block a struggle in defense of jobs, UAW Local 1268 wrote, “We don’t believe they will be able to make all these cuts, don’t make any irrational decisions at this point. We believe this is completely unobtainable and we will know more in the near future.”

Local 1268 officials said they were scheduled to meet in Detroit last week with the UAW vice president for Stellantis, Cindy Estrada, to discuss the layoffs. Such talks, however, have the character of a conspiracy against workers aimed at ensuring an “orderly” draw-down of jobs at the plant and preventing a serious struggle by workers. Estrada—who recently announced she would retire at the end of her term, and had previously been named as a target in the federal corruption investigation into the UAW—is notorious for having repeatedly negotiated painful concessions behind autoworkers’ backs, including outsourcing jobs at GM’s Lake Orion and Lordstown assembly plants.

The savage attack on jobs at Belvidere by Fiat Chrysler and then Stellantis have already had a devastating impact, confronting workers and their families with impossible decisions to either uproot and transfer hundreds of miles away, live apart indefinitely or take lower-paying jobs in the area.

Until recent years, the Belvidere plant had been the largest private employer in the region and one of the few remaining sources of relatively better-paying manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate in the economically hard-hit Rockford metro area, which is roughly 90 miles northwest of Chicago, stood at 7.9 percent as of February 2022, the highest among major urban areas in Illinois and more than 50 percent higher than the state average.

Pointing to the widespread social, economic, and political crisis in which the layoffs are taking place, a veteran worker at Stellantis Belvidere told the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter, “All of this, including the pandemic and war in Ukraine, is looking more like an economic collapse that’s going to make the recession look like a walk in the park.

“Homelessness is at an all-time high already and it’s only growing,” he continued. “Even when Wall Street takes a nose dive the billionaires, hedge fund managers and too-big-to-fail financial institutions will be insulated from the fallout that is to follow.”

Consumer prices are surging, and the Federal Reserve is moving to raise interest rates to counteract rising wages. Under these conditions, the ruling elite is seeking to distract attention from an increasingly disastrous domestic situation via the rapid escalation of a war drive, he said. “What better way to distract people than to antagonize WWIII.”

Chip shortage, supply chain disruptions continue to idle plants

Intermittent layoffs have continued to grip the global auto industry more broadly, causing considerable uncertainty and financial strain for workers.

In addition to Belvidere, Stellantis announced recently that it would be indefinitely laying off 98 workers at its Sterling Stamping plant in suburban Detroit, where five workers died of COVID-19 in 2021. The company’s Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit is also temporarily shut down until May for scheduled retooling. In Canada, the company is planning to cut the second shift at the Windsor, Ontario van plant later this year.

General Motors announced Thursday that it would be idling its Lansing Grand River assembly plant in Michigan next week, with a spokesman ascribing the downtime to parts shortages unrelated to semiconductors. GM had previously announced that it would be temporarily shutting down its Fort Wayne, Indiana, assembly plant for two weeks beginning April 4 due to a lack of microchips. The Fort Wayne plant produces the lucrative Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pickup trucks.

Ford also announced in recent days that it would idle its Flat Rock assembly plant in suburban Detroit for one week beginning Monday, also due to a chip shortage.

Even as workers at plants such as Belvidere assembly and GM’s Fairfax assembly have faced near-continual layoffs, workers at plants that produce the auto giants’ top-selling, highest-margin pickups and SUVs, such as Stellantis Sterling Heights assembly, have faced relentless demands for overtime, with their plants driven to run almost non-stop.

The impact on autoworkers’ jobs extends internationally, with supply chain disruptions exacerbated by the US-NATO conflict with Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine is a major exporter of neon gas, which is critical for microchip production, and international transportation routes and trade have been snarled by the conflict and US-led sanctions against Russia.

Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares said this week that the company’s van plant in Kaluga, Russia, operated as a joint venture with Mitsubishi, will soon run out of parts and be unable to operate. The company’s Jeep plant in Melfi, in southern Italy, will also a face a slowdown beginning next week due to a worsening chip shortage, with roughly 1,500 workers furloughed a day.

Despite the automakers benefiting from rising prices and reaping bumper profits—with Stellantis seeing its earnings nearly triple from 2020 to 2021—a brutal new wave of restructuring is being prepared, as the corporations engage in a furious struggle to dominate electric vehicle technologies and markets.

The Detroit Three—GM, Ford and Stellantis—have all announced massive investments in EVs over the coming decade, which they expect to offset by dramatically intensifying the exploitation of workers. Stellantis has stated that it will invest $35 billion in EVs by 2025, while at the same time targeting double-digit profit margins.

Stellantis CEO Tavares and his counterparts are all attempting to extort massive tax breaks from local, state, and national governments, in return for promises—easily broken—for new investments in EV manufacturing facilities. Auto industry analysts have for years put a question mark over the future the Belvidere plant, which is situated far from the core of Stellantis’ operations in the Detroit area. To attract renewed investment to the plant as well as other EV makers, Illinois’ billionaire Democratic governor, J.B. Pritzker, signed a package of major corporate tax credits last year. Press reports in recent months have indicated that Stellantis is considering assigning production of new Dodge Charger and Challenger EVs to Belvidere.

The company recently announced that it would be investing $4 billion to construct a battery facility in Windsor, just across the border from Detroit, as part of a joint venture with LG Energy Solution. Ontario Premier Doug Ford boasted that the province put up “hundreds of millions” of dollars in incentives to lure the company. Stellantis is also reportedly searching for a US location for a second North American battery plant.

The UAW, with the support of the White House, is seeking to expand its reach into the new battery plants and other EV facilities, offering its services as a “reliable partner” to the automakers and hoping to secure new dues streams. In remarks at a press event this week, UAW President Ray Curry noted that the battery plants “are joint ventures, and they are apart from the national agreements,” meaning that workers at these facilities will face even more brutal conditions and ultra-low wages.

Heading into the Detroit Three contract negotiations next year, the automakers and the UAW are preparing a similar strategy to the one they carried out in 2019 and in previous years. Massive concessions will be demanded to “save jobs,” with the future of Belvidere or other plants held as ransom. In fact, this is already being carried out in Europe, where Ford is working with the Spanish and German trade unions to pit plants against each other in a fratricidal concessions bidding war, with the losing plant slated to be shuttered. But as previous experience shows, no amount of concessions will provide a guarantee against plant closures and layoffs.

The assault being planned against autoworkers threatens to eclipse even the attacks of preceding decades, as brutal as they were. With the enormous capital investments required by the transition to EVs, the auto companies must extract even greater profits. Further, the enormous amounts of resources being channeled by capitalist governments towards war must be paid for by workers, who face an historic battle.

The struggle to defend jobs and secure a massive improvement in workers’ pay and working conditions requires new organizations, rank-and-file factory committees independent of the pro-corporate UAW. With workers confronting powerful transnational corporations, a key task of these committees is to link up and coordinate workers’ struggles across national borders, and combine the fight for higher wages and better working conditions with the fight against war.

Global food crisis fuels international class struggle


The war between the US-NATO and Russia in Ukraine has lit a fuse to the powder keg of the global class struggle. In the span of just a few weeks, the war and unprecedented US and EU sanctions against Russia have profoundly destabilized the world’s productive forces, throwing already-frail global supply chains into disarray, strengthening inflationary tendencies, and crippling global food and gas production.
People queuing for kerosene in Kandy, Sri Lanka on 22 March, 2022 [Credit: WSWS Media]

A social and economic crisis that was worsening before the war began has now metastasized, bringing billions of people to the precipice of destitution and hunger.

Shock is beginning to give way to action. Significant strikes and demonstrations are breaking out across the world in the largest wave of social protest since before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The imperialist politicians and geo-strategists who spent years drawing up the blueprints for war are discovering that despite all their careful planning, they set their bloody plans into motion on top of a massive social fault line.

The protests are heterogeneous in terms of race and religious background, international in scope, and are based in a working class that is larger, more urban and more interconnected than ever before. In more advanced and less developed countries alike, the protests revolve around the same demand: the rising cost of living is intolerable, conditions must change, and they must change now.

This is the social force that has the power to stop the drive to world war and prevent nuclear disaster. This global movement is unfolding by the hour.

On Thursday night, a large demonstration blocked the road to President Gotabaya Rajapakse’s private residence in Colombo’s outer suburbs, demanding his resignation. The right-wing government is implementing a ruthless IMF austerity regime as masses of people struggle to find medicine, food, milk and gas.

Diesel fuel has run out, currency is scarce, and long power outages blacken the country. A 31-year-old school teacher in Batticaloa told the Indian Express, “On Sunday I stood in a gas queue starting at 4 am. There is a shortage of milk powder. One has to struggle for rice and daal. There are no candles and many medicines have disappeared. I have a salary, but can we eat money?”

Similar movements are developing across the Middle East and North Africa, where Ukraine and Russia provide the bulk of wheat and cooking oil and where Ramadan, the Islamic holiday of fasting and feasting, is set to begin.

The United Nations declared Thursday that social conditions are “at a breaking point” across the region due to food shortages. The New York Times wrote Thursday that scarcity and price increases “crush household and government budgets alike in countries that had nothing to spare, raising the possibility of the kind of mass popular unrest not seen since the Arab Spring protests a decade ago, which stemmed in part from soaring food prices.”

In Egypt, the Times noted nervously, “videos of ordinary people venting about food prices have gone viral on social media under the hashtag ‘revolution of the hungry.’”

The US-backed al-Sisi dictatorship has deployed the military to distribute food and set price controls for bread. Al-Sisi addressed the nation and urged the population to “rationalize” food consumption during Ramadan.

In Tunisia, where workers first sparked the Arab Spring, the Middle East Eye wrote Thursday that “strikes intensified last week,” and as a result, “Ezra Zia, US undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights, visited the country.”

Food riots involving thousands of people took place across Iraq last week as the country, still reeling from a US invasion and occupation that killed a million people, was gripped by a serious shortage of food and flour.

Protests are also developing south of the Maghreb, in African countries where the working class has exploded in size and social weight and whose backbone includes many young people with the Internet in the palms of their hands. The average sub-Saharan African spends 65 percent of his household earnings on food. On Wednesday, the head of the Africa Development Bank said of the surge in food prices caused by the war in Ukraine: “If we don’t manage this very quickly, it will destabilize the continent.”

Protests in Sudan over shortages worsened by the war have coincided with powerful strikes of teachers and youth. Yesterday, a mass protest took place in Khartoum over the military government’s inability to stop the spiraling cost of living and where one 23-year-old protestor was killed.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to a report published Thursday by Al Jazeera, “rising fuel prices, worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have sparked fears of increased social unrest,” forcing the government to reshuffle the cabinet to preempt social anger.

In South Africa, where large riots took place last summer, the head of a major youth non-profit described the social situation as “a time bomb that is ticking and could explode in our faces at any given moment.”

This movement is also developing in the world’s imperialist centers. In Spain, a weeks-long strike by truckers has brought international shipping to a standstill and galvanized broader support in the working class over the rising cost of living. The PSOE-Podemos government has ordered grocery stores and retailers to limit what customers can purchase, as the major business confederations demand action to prevent an imminent social explosion.

In Germany and Austria, diesel will now be rationed. Large demonstrations over the cost of living took place last month in Albania.

In the United States, the cockpit of world imperialism, the emerging strike movement is driven above all by inflation and the spiraling cost of living. Five thousand teachers are on strike in Sacramento, California, following a two-week strike by teachers in Minneapolis, Minnesota in March.

In an ongoing strike by 600 oil refinery workers in Richmond, California, workers explain they cannot afford to fill their own cars with the gas they refine.

Fifty thousand grocery store workers in California are slated to strike in the coming days, while a contract for tens of thousands of dock workers on the west coast expires in a matter of weeks.

In the US and Canada, the government has banned or blocked major strikes by rail workers at BNSF and Canadian Pacific.

Rising prices in the main imperialist countries will intensify the class struggle as the war continues. According to Thursday’s US Commerce Department data, inflation will cost households an average of an extra $433 each month, or $5,200 in the next year. Given that half the country has less than $500 in emergency savings, workers will be driven into struggle by urgent necessity.

The impact of the war on living conditions is going to intensify dramatically in all countries in the coming weeks. Strategic food reserves are woefully inadequate in all countries excepting China.

Making matters worse, Ukraine and Russia are not only leading producers of staple food and oil, but Russia and Belorussia also lead the world in the production of most fertilizers, which Putin has announced will be subject to strict export restrictions in response to US and EU sanctions. This could cut global crop yields in half.

With the pandemic and the threat of world war as the immediate backdrop, a social reckoning of historic proportions is past due. Since the Arab Spring and the global protests of 2018–19, the ruling class’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prioritized profits over life and led to the deaths of 20 million people.

Stopping war means ending capitalism, and this requires political leadership. Unlike in an earlier period, the international working class owes no political loyalty to the parties of Stalinism, Social Democracy and bourgeois nationalism, which are seen as directly responsible for existing conditions of poverty and inequality.

In each country, the trade unions are a block on this developing movement, serving the capitalist governments and corporations by isolating workers, preventing them from striking, and demanding that they support the US-NATO war drive, no matter the dangers and no matter the cost to working people.

Representatives of the middle-class pseudo-left who once professed verbal support for socialism are now cheerleaders for NATO’s wars and zealous defenders of the trade unions.

The dangers of world war are great, but the road is open to the Trotskyist movement to transform this objective movement into a self-conscious movement for socialist revolution.

Spontaneous protests, no matter how militant, are insufficient to change social conditions. The Socialist Equality Party must be built in every country, and the historical experiences of the international working class must be brought into the developing struggles so that they acquire a self-consciously socialist and anti-war character. On this basis, a working class strategy of socialist revolution can develop even more rapidly than the ruling class’s strategy of imperialist destruction.



Ukrainian Refugees and Europe: A Marathon, Not a Sprint

This marathon can only be won with EU-wide solidarity towards the most affected member states as well as transatlantic burden-sharing based on our common values and principles.


April 2, 2022 

by Viktor Marsai Kristóf György Veres

As the United States pledges to take in 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing war and send $1 billion in aid to help the European refugee effort, the immense shadow of a protracted humanitarian crisis looms over the European Union (EU).

In recent weeks, the Russian invasion of Ukraine unleashed a deluge of refugees upon Europe the size of which is comparable only to the massive displacement of people at the end of World War II. At the beginning of the armed conflict, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that up to 4 million people might flee the embattled country, however, this initial projection was surpassed in a mere month—with no end in sight. To put 4 million refugees in context: this is the number of first-time asylum applications filed to the EU between 2016 and 2021.

Shortly after Russian bombs started falling on Ukrainian cities, a decisive and unified European response swiftly emerged based on an immense wave of solidarity that seemingly engulfed every nation in the EU. Frontier countries—Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania—opened their borders with a warm welcome, while governments, NGOs, as well as private citizens, acted in concert to pool every available resource to alleviate the suffering of Ukrainian refugees. A united EU fired broadside after broadside of sanctions at the Russian economy and elite; in addition, the twenty-seven member-states triggered the Temporary Protection Directive with a unanimous vote that gives temporary residence status to Ukrainians in the Union.

However, initial crisis management was made much easier by the means as well as the attitude of the first wave of Ukrainian refugees. Since the start of the Russian aggression, the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute (MRI) conducted a series of interviews with refugees arriving to Hungary, and it turned out that a large number of them crossed into the EU with a clear “action-plan.” Using their sometimes not-that-modest resources, they slowly made their way to relatives or friends already residing in the EU who would help them organize their “temporary” life outside of Ukraine. Consequently, a large number of them didn’t really need to rely heavily on government- or NGO-provided shelter, food, or medical supplies. Initially considering their stay in the EU as a transitory situation that would only last for weeks also made them reluctant to seek help through official channels.

However, a quick end to the war, and consequently a speedy return of refugees to Ukraine, seems more and more improbable. The quasi-stalemate in fighting, the increased Russian bombardment of civilian targets, the intensifying combat in urban centers, as well as inconclusive peace talks all point toward a protracted armed conflict that would hurl millions more westwards. Filippo Grandi, the UNHCR, recently warned that Russian occupation of Kyiv as well as the extension of the carnage to western Ukraine could result in a second wave of refugees, this time a more vulnerable lot, lacking resources or foreign contacts to rely on. Currently, there are approximately 6.5 million internally displaced persons in Ukraine who might eventually decide to cross international borders and become refugees, if Grandi’s dire predictions prove to be accurate

After the “yes we can” optimism of the first weeks, ominous articles are starting to pop up about insufficient capacity in frontier countries: Polish stadiums and Czech reception centers, for example, are being overwhelmed by Ukrainians looking for shelter. As more and more vulnerable groups are arriving, those already here are running out of their resources and are slowly realizing that their stay is going to last longer than a few weeks. With pressure steeply mounting on government-provided services for refugees, and with crisis-fatigue setting in, Europe is slowly realizing that the Ukrainian refugee crisis is a marathon that the EU has tried to sprint its way through.

Preparing for a prolonged stay of refugees—who will have to be integrated—the EU recently proposed to reallocate $3.74 billion for housing, education, employment, and healthcare for Ukrainians, with national governments following suit one by one. Hungary, for example, recently proposed to provide additional funding for public schools taking in Ukrainian children, as well as to subsidize accommodation expenditures for refugees. Similar measures across the EU, coupled with extra strain on the union’s universal healthcare systems, will cost billions and billions more for national budgets if hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will have to be integrated.

One thing is clear: this marathon can only be won with EU-wide solidarity towards the most affected member states—Germany, Czechia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania—as well as transatlantic burden-sharing based on our common values and principles. The $1 billion pledged by President Joe Biden might just be the first in a series of aid packages.

Viktor Marsai is the Research Director of the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute.

Kristof Gyorgy Veres is the Andrassy National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies as well as Senior Researcher at the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute.

Image: Reuters.
Munich just got its first solar-powered bus — why arent all buses solar?

Sono Motors technology used in Munich's first solar bus trailer




STORY BY
Cate Lawrence

Published March 31, 2022 - 

The question I am always asked when I mention anything related to solar energy is this: why isn’t the technology as ubiquitous as the sun?

So today I am excited to share the news that solar-power transport company Sono Motors is deploying its tech on a bus for the first time — in partnership with the Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft (Munich Transport Company, MVG).

You probably know Sono Motors from its work building Sion, the solar electric car. The Sono solar technology replaces traditional paint with proprietary integrated solar panels that can form for various applications. Unlike vehicles with rooftop solar panels alone, it comes with 456 solar half-cells on the hood, fenders, sides, roof, and rear.


I sat down with Laurin Hahn, co-founder, and CEO, to ask about the shortage of solar deployment up until now, and find out about the company’s latest partnership.

He explained that the reasons for solar’s slow start have been cost and inefficiency:

10 years ago, solar was just too expensive and too inefficient. Now, we have seen prices come down by 80% to 90%, and efficiency going up by roughly 40% to 50%.
Buses get the solar treatment

Today the company is deploying its solar technology as a diesel bus retrofit solution. As Hahn notes, “There are thousands of buses in existence. And they will not be put away tomorrow.” So, the first step is to reduce the diesel consumption of existing bus fleets.

Sono Motors’ solar bus trailer will soon hit the roads in the Munich metropolitan area, offering savings of up to 2,500 liters of diesel per year for a medium-sized fleet of 300 buses. This could lead to an annual local CO2 saving potential of more than 6.5 metric tonnes per bus.

Each trailer comes with 20 semi-flexible special photovoltaic (PV) modules, providing over 2,000 watts of energy to power the vehicles’ battery and electrical loads, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and the trailer’s steering system.

Besides saving diesel, the additional electricity stabilizes the battery’s energy supply. This extends its service life and reduces maintenance costs. The energy generated is monitored online using integrated software.

A closer view of the Sono Motors bus trailer. Credit: Sono Motors

Sono Motors has already signed more than ten letters of intent and contracts with companies such as MAN, easymile, and ARI Motors since the beginning of 2021.

The Sono solar technology is suitable for integration into existing vehicles and during the production phase of manufacturing.

When e-buses are factory-equipped with Sono’s solar technology, the additional range can be generated immediately through solar energyon the roof and sides.

Hahn explained that this reduces the standstill times for charging processes and protects the battery through a constant charging process. “As a result, the e-bus can operate longer.”

The Sion solarEV is still on track

Sonos Motors integrators solar panels not only into the car roof but the sides of the car. Credit: Sono Motors

The company still plans to roll out the solarEV, publishing news of their development progress on their website each fortnight.

Hahn shared, “We’ve been very transparent about our car development, including what’s going well and what’s going not so well.” The company is so far unaffected by the industry’s supply chain woes, but is monitoring the situation closely.

The Sion costs a mere €28,500 ($31,600). The company expects to start production in the first half of 2023. There are over 15,000 reservations valued at $385 million.

It’s a great day for solar tech, and it’s a great day for the environment.

This bizarre Japanese flying bike wants to bring air travel to the streets

Watch the Xturismo bike hover and kinda fly




STORY BY
Ioanna Lykiardopoulou


Update March 29,2022: The company tested the flying motorbike in front of a live audience in Japan. You can watch footage of the trial below.

If you’re a fan of sci-fi futuristic movies such as Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars, you’re already familiar with hoverbikes, or simply flying bikes.

For those of you who wrongfully haven’t seen Star Wars, that’s the Speeder bike. It’s a flying motorbike used by the Stormtroopers, the army of the bad guys. Image: Disney

Well, seeing hoverbikes in movies presenting futuristic and semi-human societies is normal, I guess. But seeing them in real life can be mind-blowing, super weird, what-the-fuck — you name it.

So, I was extremely surprised when Japanese startup A.L.I. Technologies unveiled its Xturismo hoverbike last November at a race track near Tokyo.

And since an image (or video in this case) speaks a thousand words, take a look yourself below:

The hoverbike shakily flew a few meters off the ground for a little over a minute — which wasn’t so impressive.

On March 29, however, the company made a much more stirring demonstration, testing it in front of thousands at Sapporo Dome in Japan before a Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters game.

This time the bike managed to fly more steadily, going up significantly higher. Check it out below:

So, how does it work?

Basically, the Xturismo is what happens when you place a motorcycle on top of a drone platform. And this makes it an VTOL, meaning a vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

The hoverbike is also a hybrid, getting its power from a conventional engine and four electric motors. It’s capable of flying thanks to a set of propellers: two primary ones (where the wheels would have been) and four secondary propellers at each corner, which act as stabilizers.

The Xturismo qualifies as an ultralight aircraft, which means that you don’t need to be a certified pilot to fly it.

The Xturismo is 3.7 meters long, 2.4 meters wide, and 1.5 meters tall. It weighs 300 kilos. Image: A.L.I Technologies


The beginning of urban air mobility?

Well, I wouldn’t say so. But we might well be witnessing the seeds of a future (far, far-off future) model.

For starters, the Xturismo’s hardly offers a breathtaking performance. The driver (or should I say pilot? ) travels slowly for just a few minutes.

Nevertheless, the bike’s maximum speed is estimated to reach an ambitious 100km/h, with an expected flight time between 30 to 40 minutes.

That’s definitely great for an actual flying vehicle, but still not good enough to replace other modes of transportation. I mean, just imagine the range anxiety you would get if you had to stop every half hour?

And besides, it’s not even allowed on-road, raising the question of where you launch and land.

Is it road-legal?


Certainly not. Not in Japan or anywhere in the world for that matter.

There’s simply no regulatory framework regarding this kind of vehicles because, well, we don’t really have them yet. And of course, it’s difficult to imagine that unless all vehicles were flying, we could see a hoverbike casually “riding” above normal traffic.

For now (and for many many years to come), the Xturismo can only be used on private properties and race tracks.

You might think that owing a large property to fly the hoverbike or renting a race track every time you’d like to fly with your motorcycle is a costly matter. And you’d be totally right.

But the Xturismo comes with a $680,000 price tag, which means that the startup is clearly addressing customers who don’t have to worry about going spending the extra mile

.
Preorders have started already and deliveries are expected to begin in the first quarter of 2022. Image: A.L.I. Technologies

What’s it good for?

The idea is that, once A.L.I. Technologies has sold and delivered the first Limited Edition 200 units, then it’d be able to offer a more affordable version.

In turn, this version could be used by rescue teams to reach locations otherwise inaccessible, according to the startup’s CEO.

As a matter of fact, the idea of a flying bike that can be used in emergency situations isn’t novel. In 2019, American company Jetpack Aviation announced the development of its military/commercial flying bike, the Speeder.

The Speeder is envisioned to offer emergency services in the military environment including the faster transportation of paramedics, patients, and supplies, especially in areas where it’d be inefficient to use a helicopter.

I think I prefer this design by the way. Image: Jetpack Aviation

And for those of you who can’t wait to get your hands on a flying bike, the Speeder will come as a Recreational version too for personal travel. And it’s $300,000 cheaper in case you’re on a budget.

You can take a look at the video below:
 

Overall, my rough guess is that I’ll be long dead before flying bikes become commercial in real life, but at least I’m very excited that I’m alive to witness their preliminary testing.
Trumpian Conservatives Hold an ‘Emergency’ Meeting Over Russia


POLITICO illustration/Photos by iStock, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

Jacob Heilbrunn
Sat, April 2, 2022, 5:01 AM·11 min read

J.D. Vance was on the warpath. “Using American power to do the dirty work of Europe is a pretty bad idea,” he told a crowd on Thursday, warning against the U.S. getting more involved in Ukraine. “We don’t have that many non-insane people in Washington. I need you to be some of them.”

Vance wasn’t speaking at a campaign stop in Ohio, where he is running for the U.S. Senate, but at the Marriott Marquis hotel in downtown Washington. The audience consisted of over one hundred mostly younger conservatives, and he was sounding the alarm about not just foreign intervention, but about other conservatives — the worrisome resurgence of the Republican establishment.

The event was the “Up From Chaos” conference, a self-described “emergency” meeting organized by the Trumpian wing of the GOP to grapple with the political fallout from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The young men, almost all of them soberly dressed in dark suits, and women, almost uniformly wearing dresses, listened attentively as one speaker after another warned about the perils of intervention for their very own lives. A return to the thinking that led to Iraq and Afghanistan could result in nothing less than World War III over Ukraine, they were warned.

And so, as Putin’s deadly and unprovoked assault drags on, the GOP is also going to war — against itself. As so often, the battle revolves around the America First doctrine first espoused by former President Donald Trump in April 2016, during the Republican primaries, at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, where he promised that he would perform a U-turn in American foreign policy by shunning military intervention abroad.

That promise never quite bore out. It was the Democratic President Joe Biden, not Trump, who ended up pulling American troops from Afghanistan. Throughout his erratic and volatile presidency, Trump never really gained control of his own national security advisers, hawkish thinkers such as H.R. McMaster and John Bolton who managed, from the perspective of Trump loyalists, to subvert his nationalist foreign policy.

But Trump did manage to shift conservative thinking about Putin himself, a powerful adversary of the U.S. who wields power with an autocratic strength that Trump and his followers openly admire. Even the invasion of Ukraine has not prompted Trump to alter his fundamentally adoring view of the Russian leader. The most that Trump would concede is that he was “surprised” Putin had invaded. Then Trump reverted to type, trying once more to game the Ukraine crisis (as he did in 2019 during a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to his first impeachment) for his own personal benefit by imploring Putin, during an interview this week on Real America’s Voice network, to release information about Hunter Biden’s nefarious activities.

Though Trump’s view of Putin may be little changed, the Russian invasion has broken open the uneasy marriage between the followers of Trump, who abhor foreign entanglements, and the hawks of the Republican Party, who have rarely seen a war they didn’t want to enter. After the debacle in Iraq, the neoconservatives who champion a crusading foreign policy based on democracy promotion and regime change came into bad odor. But almost overnight, the hawks are mounting a comeback as a new foreign policy consensus forms in Washington around bolstering the alliance with NATO and standing up to Russian aggression.

“The neocons haven’t been able to put points on the board for years,” says Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “With Ukraine, they’re back.”


Maybe so, but nothing provided a better window into the ideological ferment of the GOP — and the staying power of the Trump wing of the party — than the daylong conference at the Marriott Hotel. Throughout, it became clear that the war on Ukraine is not prompting the Trump-aligned right to back down. Quite the contrary.

As William Ruger, a Trump nominee to become ambassador to Afghanistan and the president of the American Institute for Economic Research, told me, “The neocons seem strangely buoyed by the current crisis, and love the Manichaean rhetoric coming out of the White House about this being a fight between democracy and authoritarianism. But the forces of realism and restraint are not going to back down from the fight. Unlike twenty years ago, the American public will not swallow neocon bromides.”

The participants generally described themselves as “realists” and “restrainers,” and the meeting featured what amounted to realist royalty — politicians and thinkers, ranging from GOP Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Dan Bishop (N.C.) and Matt Rosendale (Mont.) to Michael Anton, Sohrab Ahmari, Mollie Z. Hemingway, and, of course, Vance. It was organized by the American Conservative magazine and American Moment, whose self-described mission is to “identify, educate, and credential young Americans who will implement public policy that supports strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all,” and which features Vance on its board of advisers. Their explicit aim is to create a young counter-establishment to the hawkish national security network that has flourished in Washington over the past several decades, one that could funnel ideologically reliable appointees into a future Trump, DeSantis, Cruz or Hawley administration.

It was notable that at the conference, speaker after speaker targeted the GOP hawks more often than they spoke about Ukraine itself. Indeed, Kyiv itself was essentially MIA — serving more as a proxy for a dispute about America nationhood than about the country’s own fate as it’s mercilessly pummeled by Putin. The basic argument, outlined in a manifesto titled “Away From the Abyss” appearing in the new Compact magazine, is that aiding Ukraine is tantamount to hurting Ukraine. In resisting deescalation, the U.S. and its allies, so the thinking goes, run the risk of encouraging hapless Ukrainians to battle to the last man, all in the hopes of pursuing a Western-led regime change policy toward Moscow that might well trigger a global cataclysm.

Russ Vought, the president of the Center for Renewing America and the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, for example, complained about the “bombardment of the neocon moment that we are in.” For Vought, Ukraine seemed to be a sideshow. The real question, he said, is, “Why haven’t we brought our troops home from Europe? These are the questions that leaders should be considering.” In 2019, Trump, he claimed, was concerned about how Ukraine would dispose of American military aid and sensibly ordered a temporary suspension. But an “essentially imperialist” network of foreign policy elites that is oriented towards conformity “freaked out” and it “led to stark consequences for the president” — a polite term for impeachment. In the future, Vought said, “it will take a president that has the confidence to reject the experts and expose them.”

Then there was Joe Kent. Kent is a 41-year-old former Green Beret running for Congress against Washington Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler — one of 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump in 2021 over the Jan. 6 insurrection. By contrast, Kent, who has received Trump’s endorsement and received financial support from Peter Thiel and Stephen Wynn, spoke at the “Justice for J6” rally in September in Washington, where he declared, “It’s banana republic stuff when political prisoners are arrested and denied due process.” He says that he is running against “the establishment” and frequently appears on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show and Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. Addressing the conference via video, Kent explained, “Our political establishment is dead set on driving us into a catastrophic conflict with Russia.” More lethal aid to Kyiv and cyberattacks on Russia are a path to war. “We must be pragmatic,” he said. His pragmatism appears to consist of granting Putin what he covets: “Putin has laid out what he wants in Ukraine — a decent starting point,” and his demands for control over Donetsk and Luhansk are “very reasonable.” Like Vought, he singled out the neocons for blame. “The neocons on the right,” he stated, are “power drunk, bloodthirsty and cannot be trusted. Biden is sleepwalking to war.”

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) echoed Kent’s views about Ukraine. The real invasion, he suggested, wasn’t taking place in Ukraine but on America’s southern border. He explained that he opposed bills targeting Russia in Congress because “I could not support that at the exact same time we are seeing an invasion take place on our own southern border.” While “life in the Ukraine is sad and tragic,” America should be more concerned about the 100,000 American citizens who died of drug overdoses — “just as dead from an invasion.” Nor was he particularly impressed by Biden’s efforts to send aid to Ukraine, declaring, “I have major concerns about a compromised president of the United States who is sending incredible support to a less-than-forthright president of the Ukraine.” He added, “We have war hawks all over the place.”

Sen. Rand Paul, however, took a more measured tack. He observed that anti-interventionist Republicans have made real inroads into debates in Washington. Noting at the outset that “there’s a few who have shown sympathy for Russians” — did he mean Trump? — Paul was careful to note, “I have no sympathy” for the invasion of Ukraine. “Even the leaders of the neocons — we won’t mention their names, Lindsey Graham — aren’t calling for [American] troops” in Ukraine. But worries about Republican recidivism when it comes to interventionism continued to percolate at the meeting. Rep. Dan Bishop announced that “Trump deserves credit for breaking the neocon Republican orthodoxy” and that it was vital to glean lessons of “style and substance from Trump. We must break away from groupthink.”


Similarly, a panel featuring Michael Anton, a former Trump administration official and author of the controversial “Flight 93 Election” essay in the Claremont Review of Books, and Sohrab Ahmari, a former columnist for the New York Post and an editor at Compact magazine, mused about the enduring influence of the national security hawks.

The more traditional, Reaganite wing of the Republican Party sees the Ukraine crisis as a fairly straightforward issue: Putin’s invasion threatens the global order; the U.S. has a moral obligation to help enforce the rules and no little self-interest in preventing that order from breaking down. Ahmari framed it far differently. “What’s alarming is Ukraine,” and how quickly the media took its side. The “mimetic tactics” that “you remember from the coronavirus,” Black Lives Matter and now Ukraine, he said, suggest that “somehow the interventionists have learned to adapt or modify their mind control strategies.” For his part, Anton jocularly inquired whether there might be an “Omicron variant of neoconservatism.”

When it came to the actual events in Russia and Ukraine, the panelists grappled with the issue more uneasily. Some castigated the media for demonizing anyone who had the audacity to suggest that America should not rush to war. Lee Smith, who writes for Real Clear Investigations and Tablet, defended conservative commentator Candace Owens, who, among other things, blamed America for the war in Ukraine. According to Smith, the true implication of the brouhaha stirred up by Owens’ remarks is that “Donald Trump supporters are disloyal. American voters, at least half the country, are disloyal.” This “rolls over” into Jan. 6, he added. “Anyone who didn’t vote for Biden” ends up being unfairly branded as “an insurrectionist or a domestic terrorist.”

“Ukraine is a corrupt country. Come and get me,” quipped Helen Andrews, a senior editor at the American Conservative.

Several of the panelists either avoided talking about Putin or largely elided the brutality of his attempted subjugation of an entire people. But more than a few appear to harbor a conciliatory view of Putin’s prowess that was first enunciated by Patrick J. Buchanan eight years ago in a column in the American Conservative. Buchanan asked, “Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?” The question was pretty much rhetorical. Buchanan’s argument was that America, not Russia, was the bad guy in the world. According to Buchanan, “President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire ‘the focus of evil in the modern world.’ President Putin is implying that Barack Obama’s America may deserve the title in the 21st century. Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America’s embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.”

At the conference, I asked Scott McConnell, a lapsed neocon who co-founded The American Conservative with Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002 to protest the Bush administration’s march to war in Iraq, why a host of conservatives shifted from the Reagan-era stance of supporting freedom abroad to backing Putin and other far-right populists like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

He explained, “Putin and Orbán are not communists. They are classic authoritarian autocrats. There is far more freedom in Hungary than there was thirty or fifty years ago.”

It’s a point of view that is unlikely to disappear any time soon on the “America First” right — and that helps guarantee that the Marriott conference was but a fresh skirmish in a longer battle inside the GOP itself.