Not another one. . .

 As I put the finishing touches on this post, Zelensky is leaving the White House early, as talks between him and Trump appear to break down completely. The implications of this make me want to vomit. The things that inspired this post feel petty indeed. But the post is written, so here it is. 

At this late juncture, when Trump himself is basically offering to split Ukraine down the middle, Molotov-Ribbentrop style, I find it easy to forget that groups like “Films For Action” still have anything to say about it. 

I shouldn’t, because groups like this have something to say (usually the same thing) on everything. But my dumb, naïve, faith in humanity clearly knows no bounds, and I continuously underestimate people’s stubborn attachment to worthless bromides. 

Films for Action (said “Action” presumably referring to social media postings) is the latest group I’ve encountered that presumes to offer an opinion (I won’t dignify as “proposal”) on issues it knows less than nothing about. The pattern is the same: high- school level buzzwords and slogans offered up in place of any actual knowledge of history or geopolitics, from a safe, enclosed space in the west, free of input from any Ukrainian, East European, or indeed anyone in a position to know anything about it. The aggressor is praised with faint damnation, the proposed solutions utterly unworkable, the assumed causes utterly nonsensical. 

At this late junction, these groups seem incredibly inconsequential – there’s less than a candle’s chance in the Mariannes Trench that any of this stuff will be taken into account by any of the parties involved – but I know well meaning people who take these cliches seriously (and I want to test my new keyboard), so I will address some of their points:  

(Here's the link again) 

1) NATO encroachment? Encroachment on what? Countries that want to protect themselves from Russia. Eastern Europe is not Russia's property, nor its "sphere of influence". It is not entitled to any say in which treaties those countries choose to enter. It is certainly not entitled to invading countries at whim, which it has a history of doing, and which only NATO membership has been able to prevent. 

2) Reject the militarization of Ukraine - Only Ukraine's decision to make. It's not ours to reject. 

Rest assured, Russia will not similarly demilitarize, even if NATO chooses to. 

3) End U.S. and NATO weapons shipments. Presumably that would include the ant-aircraft systems which Ukraine has been using to prevent Russian missile attacks on its cities. This would leave Ukraine entirely defenseless. 

4) Propose a demilitarized zone along Ukraine’s eastern border. Which side of the border? Which border? The real one or the current one? 

5) Ending sanctions that harm civilians - a Kremlin sob story. The sanctions are currently hindering Russia's ability to maintain this war - rebuilding its lost materiel, and paying its soldiers, and producing its missiles, which harm far more civilians. 

6) Guarantee security for Ukraine through diplomatic agreements - Russia has never honoured a diplomatic agreement in its existence (except perhaps the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact). Minsk I and II, and the Budapest memorandum, were previous diplomatic agreements that supposedly guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty. All were violated with impunity. Such agreements are just pieces of paper without the strength or willingness to enforce them.

Also note that the entire project staff of this organization (with the exception of one Brit) are based in Kansas. No one from Ukraine, or any former Warsaw Pact country. No one with any experience of living next to Russia. 

Anytime anyone blames Russian behavior on “NATO encroachment”, it follows as night follows day, that said person has never met nor spoken to anyone who lived under the former Warsaw Pact. (There definitely weren’t any consulted for the production of this document).  

There’s a glorious lack of self-awareness these groups enjoy, when they cough up ideas not remarkably different from Trump’s own: freeze the lines of conflict, stop the flow of aid, and end the sanctions. Not a word about returning Ukrainian territory or kidnapped children. For all practical purposes, there’s no difference. It amounts to a mutilated, disarmed Ukraine in the face of a resurgent, unrepentant Russia. 

Wherefore all these treaties and agreements suggested by Films for Action? How, pray tell, might they be imposed or enforced? They don’t know, and probably don’t care. Such manifestos aren’t meant to be implemented, but to signify ideological commitment.  

Not long ago, many leftists embraced the "punch a nazi" craze. There was no talk of negotiated settlements then. There was some recognition there that some evils can only be dealt with one way. If only there was a similar recognition that not all evils shave their heads. 

Of Men, Martians, and Medias

 One of my favourite stories from the 20th Century has to be the reaction to Orson Welles’ radio adaptation of War of the Worlds in 1938. Basically, folks thought it was the news, and lost their shit. 

Do listen to the radio play if you ever get the chance. It does sound like a radio broadcast. It starts with an announcer from an authentic sounding station introducing an orchestra, some music, briefly interrupted by a report on some meteorites, followed by more music, then more newsflashes, until, well, the Martians are marching on New York and it's the end of civilization as we know it. It's great entertainment, and it sounds authentic.   

It was a convincing pastiche of radio news programs at the time. 

Listeners could be forgiven if they thought it was the real thing (especially in those tense, pre-WWII days). If they seemed incredulous, well, loads of people today in the internet age believe far stupider things. 

George Orwell addressed the phenomenon in 1940. More specifically, he addressed a

survey, conducted by Princeton University, of the -victims? Participants? I’d love to quote the whole thing for you in full, but suffice it to say, his words, as usual, are still crushingly relevant. 

The first interesting bit he addressed was the extent to which people on both sides of the Atlantic tended to trust what would now be called the “Mainstream” or “Legacy” media. People thought they were hearing the news, and assumed what they heard on the news had to be true. He suggests that had the story appeared on the front page of one of London’s papers, the British public would have believed it as well:

"It is known that newspapers are habitually untruthful, but it is also known that they cannot tell lies of more than a certain magnitude,”

God knows Orwell was no fan of the papers. But he kept things in perspective, and he knew there were rules to the game. For all its flaws, I’ll still take the legacy press over the post-apocalyptic swamp of meme-land, which has fostered wide-spread climate-change denial, vaccine skepticism, Russian pseudo-history, and even bloody flat-earth theory. The papers weren’t that bad. 

Even so, the listeners are not entirely let off the hook for their credulity: 

“So few of the viewers attempted any kind of check. . .It appears over two thirds of them attempted no kind of verification: as soon as they heard the end of the world was coming, they accepted it uncritically.”

It seems our lot. People don’t check. They don’t verify. They don’t investigate. They don’t stop and think “hey, wait a minute. . .” They click “like” and repost. And base their world view on that, and vote based on that. And so here we are. 

Maybe no one’s believing in Martian invasions, but they are panicking about immigrant invasions, woke hive minds, and big pharma. They’re terrified that George Soros will implant microchips in their heads, but think it cool when Elon Musk actually does it. They rage at phantasmagorical Q Anon Pizzagate child-sex rings which don’t exist, while ignoring the child victims of school shootings, who do. They will even torment the parents of Sandy Hook victims. These self proclaimed guardians of exploited children care not a whit that their messiah was buddies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The President of the United States can make stuff up off the top of his head, and every word is taken as Gospel.    

 Our civilization has no business lecturing anyone about gullibility. 

As interesting, and no less relevant to us today, were the apparent backgrounds of the believers. “The evident connection between personal unhappiness and the readiness to believe the incredible is [the survey’s] most interesting discovery.” I will quote the last bit in full:

People who have been out of work, or on the verge of bankruptcy for ten years may actually be relieved to hear of the approaching end of civilization. It is a similar frame of mind that has induced whole nations to fling themselves in the arms of a Saviour.