Nyet to Putin

What would be the worst outcome (not counting nuclear war) of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? The worst outcome, I think, would be success. That is, success for Putin. His dream of unifying Russia and Ukraine under Moscow’s authority would be a nightmare for most of us, and especially for the Ukrainians.

Speaking of the Ukrainians, their fierce defense against the Russian military is an inspiration. It is inspiring because of the courage it represents but also because it is carried out in the name of democracy.

 

Trouble began brewing about nine years ago when Ukraine started to strengthen its ties to the European Union. Putin did not like this and, probably because of Putin’s objections, Ukraine’s president Yanukovych tried to block a pending association agreement with the EU. Ukrainians objected and began protesting, occupying Independence Square in the heart of Kyiv. Yanukovych’s efforts to intimidate and suppress the protestors failed and he soon fled to Russia where he remains today. He was eventually convicted of treason in absentia by the Ukrainian government.

 

The courage of the Ukrainians in facing down Yanukovych’s efforts to crush them was a foreshadowing of what we are seeing today. Their fierce and so far effective resistance against the Russian military shows that even if they are forced to give up Kyiv to the advancing enemy, the country as whole will almost certainly be ungovernable. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky deserves a lot of credit. His personal courage has played a major part in the ongoing anti-Russian resistance. Given all this, I believe the worst possible outcome – Putin’s successful takeover – is unlikely.

 

More likely are one of two alternatives. The best would be action within the Russian government that forces Putin to give up the assault within the next few weeks. This could only come about if enough well-placed Russian leaders decide that Putin’s policy is damaging the nation’s reputation and its economy badly enough that he has to be restrained or even removed from office. That would be an outcome that practically the entire world could celebrate.

 

Also possible, but more tragic, would be a drawn out struggle in which Russians try to occupy Ukraine but, month after month, continue to take casualties and face steady resistance from the local population. This would almost certainly result in an eventual withdrawal and again, a democratic and independent Ukraine.

 

So, here’s how I would rate the chances of each of these possibilities happening:

 

Putin Successfully Conquers Ukraine                         5%

 

Putin Forced to Give Up Within Weeks                   20%

 

Long Struggle Leading to Democratic Ukraine      75%

 

 

Like most of the world’s people, I am hoping fervently for result number 2.

 

In the mean time, here are some pictures from world capitals.

 

 

          New York - In Ukraine’s National Colors

 

 

                                Liverpool

 

 

                            

                                Paris, London

 

                                   Rome

 

 

                                Berlin

                    Saint Petersburg, Russia

                        (The sign says “No to War”)

                          President Zelensky

What Is the Fight Really About?

I had never heard Randall Kennedy speak until last week when he appeared on Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square. I was impressed. Until then, I had only a vague notion of who he was - a prominent African-American public intellectual. I now understand that he is a law professor at Harvard University and the author of a number of books, including, memorably, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (2002).

 

Like any white person with at least a minimal sense of decency, I feel a certain measure of discomfort writing that title, given the prominence of the racial slur that is its subject. But I decided to write it out despite my discomfort. And I think I’m going to have to read the book in its entirety, given my interest in sociolinguistics and racial relations.

 

The n-word (by which I will identify it from now on) is peculiarly harsh in its impact. No other racial or ethnic slur carries the nasty punch that the n-word does. I’ve long believed its uniquely nasty quality reflects the viciousness of racial oppression itself. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that when used by a white person, it automatically calls up the cruelty and injustice of racial oppression and does so approvingly. To use that slur is to say through subtext, “You, black person, are stuck in a lowly category that allows me to look down on you every time I glance your way, and you have to accept it because that’s just the way things are. So, screw you.”

 

The word, in other words, is not simply an insult in the way that words like scumbag, dipshit, and asshole are. It’s an ethnic slur that echoes the dark spirit of an entire social order, a grossly unjust and cruel social order. This order is the source of the word’s poison. Those who use it are, consciously or not, strutting and preening themselves while trampling on the injured limbs and pummeled bodies of the system’s victims.

 

I have noticed in my lifetime that the n-word has replaced the f-word as the most unacceptable item in polite conversation. This is a good thing, and it reflects some of the positive changes that Professor Kennedy noted in his GPS remarks. Kennedy also noted that many of the phrases we use today have been weaponized and so have lost their usefulness in our current efforts to push social improvements further along. According to him these no longer useful terms include racism, structural racism, and, of course, critical race theory.

 

I agree.

 

It seems to me that the biggest issue facing us since the upheaval of the Trump years is best framed not as black vs. white, but as fair play and decency vs. malpractice. The key issue is the survival of the democratic institutions that we rely on to promote justice. The central political question should be, “Is your party for democracy and fair play or against them?”

 

If I were advising Democratic party leaders on future elections, I would recommend putting more emphasis on America’s longstanding promise of democracy and justice for everyone, and less emphasis on fighting racism per se. The Republican party is trying to cast Democrats as anti-white by coughing up the idea of critical race theory and claiming it lies at the heart of the Democratic party. For Republican propagandists the hope is that they can make white Americans feel inherently criticized by the Democrats. Their scheme is aimed at driving moderate whites away from the Democrats and into the GOP.

Let’s not take the bait. The real issues are not race, nor criticism about race relations, but justice and democracy. The Republicans have aligned themselves against both of these with their slew of new restrictive voting laws. Let’s fight them with all we have, not across the black-white seam, but on the front where we are sure to win, the fair play and decency divide. The Republicans have rejected these American values and that’s where we should be hitting them hardest. I can’t speak for Professor Kennedy, of course, but my sense is that he would agree with this approach.

 

                 Professor Randall Kennedy