In case you are wondering what “tankies” are, Kos has been referring to them in updates on Ukraine, as for example, here:
For those who haven’t read previous installments, Tankies are people who believe imperialism is bad, and only the United States can be imperialist. Thus, Russia is the aggrieved party here, only attacking Ukraine because NATO something or other. This tweet encapsulates it perfectly:
Tankies are named after communist sympathizers who witnessed Soviet bloody suppression of the Prague and Hungary uprisings, yet continued to defend the Soviet Union. I’ve written about them here and here, and they’re always good for a quizzical look askance, and then a surprised chuckle when you realize they’re actually serious.
Digby took a look at something from James Kirchick the other day, and while she doesn't normally agree with him, this is something she can accept. From the Atlantic:
Critics of U.S. foreign policy from both ends of the ideological spectrum have found common cause in supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It begins with a quote from Orwell (Which is why he’s at the top of this diary.)
In 1942, answering a pacifist opponent of British involvement in the Second World War, George Orwell replied that “pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.” There have of course been many times in human history when opposition to war has been morally justified, intellectually coherent, and, in the end, vindicated. But the war to defeat fascism during the middle part of the past century was simply not one of them. “This is elementary common sense,” Orwell wrote at the time. “If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”
Eight decades later, as a fascistic Russian regime wages war against Ukraine, a motley collection of voices from across the political spectrum has called upon the United States and its allies to adopt neutrality as their position. Ranging from anti-imperialists on the left to isolationists on the right and more respectable “realists” in between, these critics are not pacifists in the strict sense of the term. Few if any oppose the use of force as a matter of principle. But nor are they neutral. It is not sufficient, they say, for the West to cut off its supply of defensive weaponry to Ukraine. It must also atone for “provoking” Russia to attack its smaller, peaceful, democratic neighbor, and work at finding a resolution that satisfies what Moscow calls its “legitimate security interests.” In this, today’s anti-war caucus is objectively pro-fascist.
Read the whole thing — it’s not that long, or you can look at the excerpts Digby quotes, which she ends with this observation:
I am used to seeing the right wingers perform situational morality. They are shameless. But I confess that I’ve been stunned to see the anti-war left take what amounts to an endorsement of Putin’s aggression. I just can’t see how you can object to the American invasion of Iraq but see the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an acceptable response to alleged NATO incursion on it’s “sphere of influence.” Imperialism is imperialism. WTF?
We are seeing popular fronts form all over the place. Kirchick is right: this one is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Considering that many of the tankies blame the expansion of NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, here’s a 2015 video from World Order filmed in a number of European countries, offering their own musical commentary on what a united front has made possible after the destruction of World War II.