Thursday, August 01, 2024

 

Clifton D’Rozario (CPIML Liberation, India): ‘Modi’s Hindu supremacist and pro-US foreign policy have greatly set back regional cooperation’

COMMUNIST PARTY INDIA MARXIST LENNINST LIBERATION 

Published Mastodon

Trump Modi

Clifton D’Rozario is a Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation leader and All India Central Council of Trade Unions national secretary. In this interview with Federico Fuentes for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, D’Rozario discusses Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role as a global far right leader and the impact of US-China tensions on South Asian politics and struggles.

After the Cold War’s end, global politics seemed dominated by US imperialism. More recently, however, a shift appears to be taking place. While the US was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, we have seen China’s rise, Russia invade Ukraine, and even smaller nations, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, flexing military power beyond their borders. How do you understand these dynamics within global imperialism?

All these developments point to a multidimensional global crisis and waning US hegemony. The US-led imperialist core, despite its military debacles, continues expanding its clout though covert and overt operations and alliances across the world. But current dynamics mark a transition within global power structures, with traditional Western dominance being challenged by rising powers. This creates a more complex and competitive international landscape in terms of domination of weaker nations.

Regardless of the internal character of competing global powers, a multipolar world is more advantageous for progressive forces and movements seeking to reverse neoliberal policies and advance social and political transformations. Inter-imperialist rivalries in the early 20th century not only produced World War I but facilitated the Russian revolution, which snapped the imperialist chain at its weakest link.

Despite its severe internal distortions and subsequent degeneration, the Soviet Union succeeded in overpowering fascism and ending World War II on a victorious note for anti-colonial struggles and revolutionary movements. Even as the Soviet Union stagnated in later decades and trapped itself in an unsustainable arms race between superpowers, its existence as a countervailing force to US domination helped many Third World countries and movements pursue their own course with a considerable degree of relative autonomy from imperialist control.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US has sought to unite liberal democracies from the Global North (such as Britain, Germany and Australia) in the name of defeating autocracies and totalitarian regimes, including by military means. But the US always uses these claims in justifying endless wars, brutal occupations and coups (including against elected governments) to install puppet rulers and dictators. Israel’s genocide in Gaza, aided and abetted by “liberal democracies” and “authoritarian regimes” such as India, further exposes the fallacy of this argument.

Yet the space being opened by this emerging unstable “multipolar world” has largely been filled by right-wing, authoritarian regimes, such as Modi’s. What role does Modi play in regional and global politics? More generally, what threat does the global far right pose today?

We stand at a critical moment in history. Fascism is on the rise globally, through the consolidation of fascist regimes accompanied by intense resistance movements in several countries. This is a direct result of increasing contradictions in the international capitalist system and the tragic destruction caused by neoliberalism. This global crisis of capitalism — which is also a climate crisis — has led to deep insecurity and deprivation, creating fertile ground for fascist and authoritarian forces. The working class must defeat these forces.

These forces blame minorities and immigrants for inequality and insecurity, rather than neoliberal policies. In power, their regimes have been characterised by: organised racial and/or communal violence by fascist groups; attacks on dissent, civil liberties and freedom of speech; intensified anti-feminist politics and assaults on women’s and LGBTI rights; the use of fake news to whip up hatred and prejudice; and personality cults and centralisation of power in a single powerful leader. The ideologies of most of these right-wing regimes are rooted in racial supremacy, religious politicisation and the construction of the nation on a singular identity.

Unsurprisingly, there is ongoing collaboration between right-wing regimes. But these same regimes are being legitimated by the international order. It is worth remembering that for a long period after the 2002 Gujarat genocide, Modi, who was Gujarat state Chief Minister at the time, was denied a visa by several Western countries, including the US and Britain. But given right-wing authoritarianism’s growing ascendancy in global politics, Modi, as prime minister, now receives strong support from the West — even after [former radical right US president Donald] Trump left office. This too is an undeniable reality of the emerging multipolar world.

Modi has played his role in all this, given Indian fascism has perhaps been in power longer than any similar regime in the world today. Modi has sought domestic and global support by combining Hindu supremacist hyper-nationalism with a pro-US foreign policy. His aim is to leverage global attention for the Indian market, deepen corporate India’s integration with global capital, and secure India’s strategic role as a close ally of the US and Israel. Under Modi, India’s strategic subservience to US global hegemony has greatly increased. His lack of support for Palestine, even in the face of genocide, is a product of his regime’s growing strategic partnership with Israel.

Modi portrays a measure of autonomy from the US-led West by being part of BRICS [the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa alliance] and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, where India shares a platform with Russia and China. But the real direction of Modi’s foreign policy is the opposite. Modi’s refusal to condemn [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s unjust war on Ukraine is due to India’s dependence on Russia, which is India’s largest weapon supplier and a major energy source.

Growing tensions between the US and China are of great concern. What is behind US military strategy in the region? How should we view China’s role and its relations with neighbours such as India? What role has Modi played in regional tensions?

China’s rise as a major economic powerhouse has seen the US-led imperialist bloc search for new avenues to counter China, in its attempt to maintain and strengthen a unipolar world order. In this context, India has stepped up military relations with the US, becoming a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) alongside Japan and Australia. The Quad forms part of the US’ regional military alliances aimed at countering China in the Indo-Pacific region. It is also an attempt to deploy US military personnel and assets in India against China. We condemn India’s involvement in the Quad, which goes against the sovereign interests of the country.

The growing identification between India’s foreign policy and US strategic priorities has led to a worsening of India’s relations with, and growing isolation from, almost all its neighbours. The recent past has seen border clashes between China and India, with reports of Chinese incursion into areas under Indian control. Modi has refused to come clean about the actual state of affairs in the border region, preferring to step up anti-China rhetoric for domestic political calculations, even as imports from China reach record highs and India’s trade deficit surges.

More generally, India’s regional hegemonic ambitions, growing promotion of Indian corporate interests in the region, and attempts to define Indian nationalism in Hindu supremacist terms have created deepening mistrust and tension in South Asia. Hindutva’s [Hindu nationalism] transnational spatial ambition, with its claims on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka as parts of its strategic vision of Akhand Bharat (Undivided India), has further complicated matters.

All this has greatly set back prospects for regional cooperation and friendly ties with neighbours. Yet India’s neighbours are important to our struggles, given historic connections and shared concerns arising from interconnected patterns of economic development and foreign policy factors.

What stance has the CPI(ML) Liberation taken on issues such as Ukraine and Taiwan?

The CPI(ML) categorically condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, and has insisted on restoring peace in a way that guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty. We have condemned Russian chauvinism and its expansionist Eurasianism, which sees Ukraine as an integral part of Russian territory and culture, and attributes Ukraine’s sovereign existence to a “mistake” by [Russian revolutionary Vladimir] Lenin that needs correcting. We do not accept Russia’s claims that NATO’s eastward expansion justifies the war.

At the same time, while Ukraine and Russia bleed and much of the world pays a heavy price for this war, the US benefits the most despite not being directly involved. While claiming to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty, the US and corporate capital is busy effectively colonising Ukraine’s economy, with vast swathes of land, state-owned enterprises and industries being transferred to corporations that are benefiting from deregulation and the slashing of labour laws [enacted by the Ukrainian government].

As for NATO, the US historically used it as a weapon to sustain its geopolitical and military domination during the Cold War and post-Soviet periods. There was no justification for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But instead of dismantling NATO, the US expanded it from 12 member countries to now 30. This expansion aims not just to contain Russia and its growing cooperation with China, but to hold back the rise of Europe as a parallel power.

Regarding Taiwan, the US considers it a pawn in its imperialist designs for the region. It continuously seeks to maintain tensions between China and Taiwan through its military manoeuvrings. China and Taiwan have a complicated history, but it is for the Taiwanese people to decide their future course.

I would add that Ukraine is not the only war in the world today. We have, for example, the genocide in Palestine. The forces of peace, justice and democracy must speak up against every unjust war of invasion and occupation, and every suppression and denial of democracy.

How have these global and regional dynamics impacted politics in India?

Global dynamics, particularly the rise of China, the US’ shifting foreign policy, India’s proximity to the US-led imperialist bloc, and its own regional power aspirations impact domestic politics and struggles in India.

Over the past decade, Modi’s reference to India as the vishwaguru (spiritual mentor to the world) has become an overused figure of speech. The fact that India held the presidency of the G20 summit during 2023 served as a chance for Modi to domestically highlight India’s self-proclaimed vishwaguru status. Also repeated ad nauseam is the refrain that Modi’s reign has heralded a major change in India’s image abroad, with the country emerging as a true global leader.

The hollowness of this claim is apparent, given the abject poverty facing most Indians on account of Modi’s neoliberal economic measures and disastrous policy prescriptions, such as demonetisation, Covid lockdowns and imposing a GST. Even so, this discourse has found a willing audience among India’s aspirational middle class and social and economic elites, who seek equal status with their counterparts from the Global North.

It has also found an audience among the diaspora, which for decades has been a focus of indoctrination and mobilisation by the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, of which Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is a political front]. This was particularly the case in the US and Britain, but is now true for most Global North nations with a significant Indian diaspora population. This has led to the formation of various supremacist organisations abroad, such as the Hindu American Foundation and Overseas Friends of the BJP, among others. These organisations play an instrumental role in whitewashing Modi’s divisive ideology by organising huge rallies involving elements of the local political establishment.

An example was the “Howdy Modi” event in Texas in 2019, where Modi interacted with the diaspora alongside Trump. There was also an event in Sydney in 2023, where Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese heaped praise on Modi, likening him to US rockstar Bruce Springsteen in his cringe-worthy introductory speech. Such support from abroad and legitimacy from world leaders is crucial for Modi, given his deeply divisive, oppressive and controversial ideology and policies. Unsurprisingly, after the recent Lok Sabha [national parliament] elections, Modi once again took off on one of his countless foreign trips, this time flying to Italy for the G7 Summit.

statement by South-East Asian left parties in 2022 raised the need to “promote and advance progressive regional peace initiatives as building blocks toward a common security policy to foster a more peaceful and cooperative global order.” Looking at the situation in South Asia, what kind of peace initiatives do you think could help achieve this aim?

The Asia-Pacific region is witnessing a concerted effort by US imperialism to restore its waning global hegemony. The Australia-United Kingdom-United States trilateral security partnership (AUKUS), the Washington-designed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) and the Quad are all part of its attempts to counter the strategic partnership between China and Russia.

In South Asia, we must seek closer and more effective links among progressive forces to counter these imperialist designs, and struggle for global peace and planetary survival. To this end, we must strengthen struggles against neo-colonial domination, imperialist intervention, military aggression, environmental destruction and climate crisis. We must develop closer ties with Communist parties and progressive forces in South Asia and the world to strengthen international solidarity for peace, justice, freedom, democracy and human rights, and against fascism, war, terrorism, religious extremism, racism, Islamophobia, and the politics of hate and bigotry.

Do you see any chances to build bridges between anti-imperialist struggles, considering that national movements may have different powers as their principal enemy and therefore seek support from rival powers? Is it possible to advance a position of non-alignment with any of the competing blocs (neutrality) without abandoning solidarity? In sum, what should a 21st internationalism that is anti-imperialist and anti-fascist look like?

In the struggle for global peace and planetary survival, we must develop closer cooperation and coordination with all movements resisting fascism and predatory global capital. In this sense, we need to strengthen solidarity with the Palestinian struggle as well as the West Papuan and Kanak struggles [in Kanaky/New Caledonia].

While we see multipolarity as evolving for the better, India’s position should be one of non-alignment and solidarity against imperialism, alongside maintaining good neighbourhood relations at the regional level as a means of undermining US imperialism.

The growing unsustainability of decaying capitalism, the renewed rise of fascist and authoritarian regimes, recurring calamities caused by the growing environmental and climate crisis, and dramatic uncertainties and vulnerabilities resulting from digital technology (especially the huge labour-displacing use of automation and artificial intelligence) are creating new challenges and opportunities for the international Communist movement and for socialist experiments in the 21st century. We need to be particularly attentive to any revival of socialist politics in the unfolding international situation.

 Reviews


A CLASSIC 

Internationalism or Russification? A Study in the Soviet Nationalities Problem


Ivan Dzyuba: Internationalism or Russification? A Study in the Soviet Nationalities Problem. Published resistance books and IIRE. £17 / €20.



Friday 26 July 2024, by Frank Slegers

The Ukrainian publicist Ivan Dzyuba wrote Internationalism or Russification? A Study in the Soviet Nationalities Problem in 1965. Nikita Khrushchev had just been succeeded by Leonid Brezhnev. For several reasons, republishing the book today is a good idea. This 60-year-old book is surprisingly interesting and not only because in 2014 Putin launched a new attempt to Russify Ukraine through force of arms.

The Soviet Republic of Ukraine, a part of the Soviet Union, experienced a wave of repression in the 1960s, one that specifically targeted young intellectuals. Ivan Dzyuba took an active part in the protests. He wrote this book as a letter to the leadership of the Communist Parties in Ukraine and the Soviet Union. He did not receive a reply but the book enjoyed wide underground circulation. In 1972, Dzyuba was expelled from the writers’ union, arrested and sentenced to five years in prison.

Lenin

Ivan Dzyuba shows in detail how the policy of Russification under Stalin and Khrushchev was completely at odds with the vision of Lenin and the Bolsheviks during and immediately after the Russian Revolution. The fight against Greater Russian chauvinism in the young Soviet Union was Lenin’s last (and lost) fight. Fatally ill after several strokes, Lenin criticised the actions of Stalin and others in ’the Georgian question’ in his ’testament’ in 1923/24.

In the Soviet Union of 1965, it was of course convenient to invoke Lenin, by now an untouchable and petrified icon. Dzyuba does not make a critical assessment of the Bolsheviks and the national question during the Russian revolution. But neither does he limit himself to a few handy quotes. The book reads like a rich anthology from the early days of the Soviet Union, of polemics by Lenin, interventions by a wide spectrum of other Bolsheviks and other thinkers, Russians and Ukrainians, excerpts from manifestos and congressional resolutions... The early days of the Russian revolution and its debates on the national question come alive in this book. Marx and Engels are also covered.

While reading, one is impressed by the Marxist culture of dissident intellectuals like Dzyuba in the then Soviet Union. In that sense, this book is a good document of its time.

Tsarism

But the book is more than that. It contains numerous interesting ideas that are still useful today.

For instance, Dzyuba analyses the specific features of Russian colonialism under the Tsars. This colonialism was different from, for example, the actions of England or France in their overseas colonies (p.131-135). Because the colonised territories were contiguous with Russian territory, a policy of complete assimilation was adopted. The subjugated peoples were not formally considered to be inferior, or of a lower race. They were not supposed to go their own way though: ’why defend a people’s own identity, aren’t we all brothers?’ Resistance was supposedly ’betrayal of the common Fatherland’. A clever, complex and flexible strategy was developed to corrupt and de-nationalise the subjugated peoples.

The Russian Tsarist Empire, ’the Third Rome’, invoked its supposed mission to liberate all Slavic peoples. Russification rested on the notion of a common homeland, brotherly ties, blood relations. Supposedly, the subject peoples were different kinds of Russians, with the Russian language as a common language to forge unity. When Tsarina Catherine II wanted to replace Ukrainian schools with Russian ’people’s schools’, she insisted that this should be done at the request of the parents themselves (requests that therefore had to be organised).

The continuity with the assimilation policy under Stalin and Khrushchev is striking. ’Colonialism can appear not only in the form of open discrimination, but also in the form of ’’brotherhood’’, and this is very characteristic of Russian colonialism’ (p. 148). In the 1960s, no one was jailed for speaking Ukrainian, but at universities the language of instruction was Russian. Ukrainian was for use in the home. Russification wore the mask of brotherhood, the unity of the Soviet people….

Not for nothing does Putin invoke continuity with the Tsars and with the Soviet Union after Lenin: for him, there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation. Anyone who claims there is one, is supposedly a fascist.

City and countryside

Another strong idea in the book is the description of the negative consequences of Russification (p.280-284).

Russification maintained the division between Russian-speaking cities and the Ukrainian-speaking countryside. For the benefit of the Tsars, during the nineteenth century Ukrainian towns were industrialised in resource-rich areas. These newly industrializing regions were populated with Russian workers. The petty bourgeoisie there also adopted the language of the masters. People in such towns looked down on the countryside, where the supposedly backward population spoke Ukrainian, which was considered to be a kind of inferior dialect. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks, who were strong in the Ukrainian industrial cities, struggled with this division and the creation of the modern Ukrainian nation, which would eventually lead to the failure of the Ukrainian Revolution. The structure first created by this colonialism persists to this day, although Ukraine has developed into a fully-fledged nation (whatever Putin may claim).

Dzyuba describes how Russification kept rural Ukraine locked in an inferiority complex; ’the denationalizing pressure ’’from above’’, from the city, do not rank least among the factors making for that drop in vitality, that demoralization, indifference to life and drunkenness, which you can often observe among the rural population and which in themselves are a serious social problem.’ (p. 281) This does not mean that things were better in the cities. The loss of roots lead to emptiness, a showy semi-culture with claim to excitement, in reality ’the horror of emptiness’, reflexive irresponsibility or indifference, a hidden or visible boredom. This extended to the governance of Soviet Ukraine. Russian was not a living language, rooted in the nation, but an eraser of difference, a tool for swallowing up nations, a triumph of blunt bureaucratic uniformity, discipline and deadlines.

Even Russian intellectuals worried about the fate of Russian when it was developed into the vehicle of Russification, Dzyuba says. It is reminiscent of the sterile English that is now becoming the language of instruction in international institutions and in our universities.

It is also reminiscent of the European Union, another empire that is not a true community of peoples. Dzyuba cites on p. 296 a statement by De Gaulle, quoted in Pravda, in which De Gaulle argued against a unified Europe in which the sovereignty of peoples would disappear: not so strange when you look at the soulless bureaucracy now ruling from Brussels.

Russification

The bulk of the book is devoted to a detailed study, supported by documents, figures and statistics, of Russification in Ukraine in the 1960s and the stories told by Moscow to cloak that policy in pseudo-internationalism and pseudo-brotherliness. The material Dzyuba gathers is impressive and gives the book its monumental power.

What went wrong in the Soviet Union? Many studies on the degeneration of the Soviet Union, the bureaucratic degeneration culminating in the Stalinist terror in the 1930s have been published. Dzyuba adds a valuable chapter with his description of Moscow’s policy towards the numerous nationalities.

Nationalism

However, there is something to be said against Dzyuba’s views on nationalism and nation-building. For instance, he approvingly quotes A.D.Gradovksy who situates the formation of nations in Europe in the nineteenth century in the development of culture, freedom, involvement in political debate... (p.48). Other factors also played a role in the emergence of nation-states, such as modern forms of warfare and with this the need for taxation and conscription, a national administration and clear borders. Military confrontations explain why Germany and Austria are now separate nations.

Or look at Flanders: first there was the ’Belgian Revolution’ of 1830 and then in this Belgium the cultural suppression of Flemish, resulting in a Flemish identity arising from nowhere. The parallel with the cultural oppression of Ukraine is striking, by the way, as the Russian philosopher Alexander Herzen, quoted by Dzyuba, already noticed: ’once when Herzen was in Brussels, he pointed out that the ’’educated’’ section of the Belgians spoke French, while the common people, whom the former despised, spoke Flemish. Herzen saw in this an enormous injustice and danger to democracy.’ And Herzen drew the parallel with Ukraine (p. 282).

Dzyuba’s account of the emergence of nations in Europe is an extrapolation of the development of Ukraine in the late nineteenth century.

In the book’s opening, Dzyuba applauds the Ukrainian nation: ’The Ukrainian people has never been aggressive and intolerant towards others’, ’To the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian intellectuals, because of their democratic spirit, narrow nationalism has always been alien and chauvinism quite unnatural.’ (p.41). In fact, this is not true. After all, Bandera’s Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was guilty of pogroms during World War II and members of it collaborated in the Holocaust. It is is just one step to connect a certain quality with the very ’nature’ of a people to also connect aggressive actions by other peoples to their nature. Dzyuba does not take that step, but he is very close to it.

Dzyuba also writes that it is one’s duty to be culturally active in one’s own nation and not to abandon it when its national survival and future are at stake (p.91). This reads like a rejection of cosmopolitan intellectuals. Was this his intention? I was in any case left with an uneasy feeling.

But apart from that, this is a surprisingly strong book that more than deserves this reissue. The book also includes statistics, a handy list of names and an extensive register.

Russian terror in occupied areas of Ukraine: homes confiscated en masse



Thursday 25 July 2024, by Simon Pirani

The property grabs come on top of a campaign of terror by security forces to encourage peope to inform on each other, legal pressures piled on those who still have Ukrainian passports, and other de-Ukrainisation measures.

The confiscations “are now being conducted on a massive scale”, the Eastern Human Rights group (EHRG) reported on their telegram channel. More than 1 million flats, houses and garages had been seized in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

“The occupation authorities’ list of properties with ‘no owner’ includes 541,904 units in Luhansk and 873,438 in Donetsk (updated on 1 June 2024).

“There are both open and hidden confiscations.”

For example, a family can find that its home has been declared to have “no owner”, and be forced to make a payment to prevent it being seized. If people are away from home for e.g. a month, they can return to find their property has been expropriated.

If the owner of a flat dies, the occupation authorities typically sell it cheaply, or hand it over to the security forces, regardless of the rights of family members or legatees.

Allotments, country houses and garages are being grabbed, as well as flats.

“The seizure of property in the occupied territories is a way of reducing the number of Ukrainian citizens in the occupied areas, since many people’s connection with those areas is exactly that they have property there”, the EHRG said. “Many flats are handed over to citizens of the Russian federation who move to the occupied territories.”

Other ways of piling pressure on Ukrainian citizens include:

□ Detentions by the security services of people accused of failing to inform on people committing “terrorist acts”. The EHRG stated: “We are aware of 96 cases in which residents were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in this way.”

Typically, the army or security services will detain someone on “terrorism” charges – which can include e.g. communicating information – and, having beaten a “confession” out of them, arrest more people who were supposedly aware of this activity.

They are then charged under Article 205.6 of the Russian criminal code, which criminalises any failure to inform the authorities of people who “will commit or have committed a crime”.

□ A wider campaign of “filtration”, using a wide range of charges, which the EHRG reported results in deportation or imprisonment in 90% of cases. “If the person is imprisoned, then he is sent as far as possible away from the occupied territories to complete his sentence.”

□ Discrimination against Ukrainian passport-holders at Sheremetyevo airport near Moscow, the key travel junction from the occupied territories to other destinations. The travellers, mostly elderly people whose families have left the occupied territories, are made to stand in queues for between 15 and 27 hours to have documents checked.

More than half are then refused entry to the airport, despite the fact that they are travelling from territories that are supposedly part of the Russian federation.

□ The imposition of Russian nationality on teenagers, including through recruitment of 48,000 over-14s to the “Movement of the First”, which effectively compels its members to take a Russian passport. This goes with nationalist indoctrination programmes in schools.

The EHRG has received confirmation of four deaths this year, and numerous hospitalisations, as a result of the conditions at Sheremetyevo.

The EHRG was formed in Luhansk in 2014 by labour-movement-affiliated lawyers, in response to the mass of labour rights violations and human rights abuses that accompanied the initial Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Since 2022 it has continued to monitor the situation for working people in the occupied areas.

Commenting on the latest de-Ukrainisation measures in the occupied territories, the EHRG denounced Russian nationalist ideologues who claim that Ukraine is becoming “post-Ukraine”. They singled out the writer Sergei Uralov, who works with the far-right TV presenter Dmitry Puchkov, and his book The Ukrainian tragedy: the technology of craziness.

Uralov warns in the book that Russian nationalism faces a “struggle for the future”: in “post-Ukraine” it will have to explain the history of the “special military operation”.

Uralov writes:

If the narrative of “occupation” [of Ukrainian territory by Russia] dominates, recidivism will continue. On the territory of post-Ukraine a generation will grow up that have lost their fathers, brothers and granddads. And each one of them will want revenge. […] The safety of our children and grandchildren depends on how we communicate to people in post-Ukraine, who will eventually become our fully-fledged fellow citizens, why the special military operation was necessary, and what sort of state and society we will build together.

The theme, developed in the book – and fitting closely with the intimidation directed against Ukrainian passport-holders in the occupied territories – is that Ukraine has become post-Ukraine, and its only future must be its subordination to Russia. The EHRG cited Uralov’s book and commented:

The occupiers admit that a new generation will appear in Ukraine that hates Russia. […] The dictator in the Kremlin and his acolytes are signalling to western politicians and the press that they are supposedly ready for negotiations. But at the same time, within the Russian Federation they are stirring up hatred towards Ukrainians, pumping up the rhetoric […] that all Ukrainian citizens are the enemy and must be destroyed.

Reports of organised resistance to the Russian occupation were published last month by Alterpravo (Luhansk regional human rights centre). The Zhovta Strichka movement, active in Dovzhansk, Luhansk, Melitopol, Berdiansk and Perevalsk, posts pro-Ukrainian slogans, writes protests on Russian bank notes and posts videos on line of Russian propaganda materials being burned.

Another report, by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies that works closely with the US military, outlines the stream of assassinations, sabotage, poisonings and other attacks on Russian armed forces, some coordinated by the Ukrainian armed forces and some conducted by volunteer partisan groups. It claims a high level of participation in sabotage activities in Crimea, especially by women.

□ Sources of information in English about the situation in the occupied territories include the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions twitter feed and the regular reports by Alterpravo (tricky to find on their Ukrainian-language web site, the latest is here). For other sources, see also People & Nature’s overview of the situation in the occupied areas (February 2024).

□ PS. In the last 24 hours western politicians, the new UK prime minister Keir Starmer included, have loudly condemned the Russian bombing of the Ohmatdyt Children’s Hospital in Kyiv as a war crime, which it undoubtedly was. By comparison, the politicians’ silence on the news from Gaza is deafening: the publication on Friday by The Lancet of a “conservatively” estimated 186,000 death toll from the conflict; the bombing on Saturday of a school where displaced people were sheltering, causing at least 16 deaths and 50 injuries; the new assault on Gaza City yesterday, forcing the evacuation of the Al-Ahli Baptist hospital and leaving civilians nowhere to go. These are all war crimes, too. (Starmer phoned the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, yesterday, but has made no public mention of these genocidal acts.)

On this blog, I write about Russia and Ukraine because I know more about those countries, about which I have written for decades. There’s no hierarchy of suffering here. Shame on these politicians and their disgusting double standards. From Ukraine to Palestine, occupation is a crime.

People and Nature

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.