Risky business

11 04 2025

The original version of Risk, the Parker Brothers board game of strategic territorial conquest first known euphemistically as “the Continental Game,” had Ukraine occupying Russia, or at least the historically pre-imperial territory of Russia, along with Belarus, the Baltic Republics, and much of eastern Europe (see below). As a kid, I used to play the game with siblings and cousins; I don’t recall us making too much of that reversal — it made sense to us diaspora Ukrainians. But it also meant that defending Ukraine was really difficult, as it could be attacked from six directions.

I’ve been trying to find out how that huge Ukraine got into the design. The game was created in the early 1950s by French filmmaker Albert Lamorisse, best known for the dreamy 1956 film The Red Balloon (a beautiful film made even more so by Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s 2007 remake The Flight of the Red Balloon; in retrospect, to us diaspora Ukrainians “Ukraine” was a bit like a red balloon, floating of its own accord like an imagined utopia well away from the world’s realpolitik). From what I’ve seen, the original version of the game, called La conquête du monde, had multiple names within territories; the one that became Ukraine had five names.

The game was redesigned by French game designer and philosopher Jean-René Vernes, and then bought out by Parker Brothers, a family-owned, Salem, Massachusetts based company famous for Monopoly, Clue, Sorry!, Ouija (acquired in 1966), and others, which created the original English-language version of Risk (the one we played, with the large Ukraine) in 1959. That was before the Cuban missile crisis, when westerners mostly knew Ukraine as a Soviet republic whose representation at the UN was fully subordinate to Russia.

I’ve heard theories that someone involved in the game design was Ukrainian (no doubt a diasporic one), but have not found anything to substantiate that. Was it a flight of fancy on the part of Lamorisse (a Persophile who died in a helicopter crash while making a documentary in Iran in 1970) or Vernes, who had spent a few years in a German PoW camp during world war two? According to Philip Orbanes’ book-length history of Parker Brothers, The Game Makers, the game’s tiny wooden armies were made by a Czechoslovak company, but Czechoslovakia’s location on the game board would have been an unidentified borderland of “Ukraine” and/or “Northern Europe.” Heading Parker Brothers at the time of the Risk acquisition was the company’s founder’s son-in-law Robert Barker, and a nephew, Eddie Parker, apparently played a key role in the game’s redesign (though the territorial map was hardly altered, from what I can tell). Neither of them seemed to show much interest in things Ukrainian.

Perhaps it was just the fact that Russia’s huge landmass would have been too large on the map of conquerable territories, and calling one piece of the six or seven that made it up “Russia” didn’t make much sense. “Ukraine” it was.

We might think of it today as an inspirational model for how to decompose the imperial-colonial construct known today as “Russia,” a decomposition some take to be inevitable.





Snyder: Vance goes to Greenland

29 03 2025

Timothy Snyder’s piece on US Vice-President Vance’s visit to Greenland has more insights in it than all the other coverage you’re likely to see of that visit combined. (Yale should be mourning its loss of Snyder to the University of Toronto.) Even choosing a few to quote is difficult without quoting the entirety. I recommend reading the original, but here are some selections.

“When Vance says that Denmark is not protecting Greenland and the base, he is wishing away generations of cooperation, as well as the NATO alliance itself. Denmark was a founding member of NATO, and it is already [America’s] job to defend Denmark and Greenland, just as it is Denmark’s job (as with other members) to defend the United States.

“Americans might chuckle at that idea, but such arrogance is unwarranted. We are the only ones ever to have invoked Article 5, the mutual defense obligation of the NATO treaty, after 9/11; and our European allies did respond. Per capita more Danish soldiers were killed in the Afghan war than were American soldiers. Do we remember them? Thank them?

“The threat in the Arctic invoked by Vance is Russia; and of course defending against a Russian attack is the NATO mission. But right now the United States is supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine. No one is doing more to contain the Russian threat than Ukraine. Indeed, Ukraine is in effect fulfilling the entire NATO mission, right now, by absorbing a huge Russian attack. But Vance opposes helping Ukraine, spreads Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and is best known for yelling at Ukraine’s president in the Oval Office.

“On the base, Vance blamed the killing in Ukraine on Biden rather than on Putin, which is grotesque. Vance claimed that there is now an energy cease-fire in place between Russia and Ukraine; in fact, Russia violated it immediately. Russia is now preparing a massive spring offensive against Ukraine; the response of Musk-Trump has been to ignore this larger reality completely while allowing Biden-era aid to Ukraine to come to an end. Denmark meanwhile has given more than four times as much aid to Ukraine, per capita, as does the United States.

“There are only a couple hundred Americans at Pituffik where once there were ten thousand; there is only that one US base on the island where once there were a dozen; but that is American policy, not Denmark’s fault.

“We really do have a problem taking responsibility. The United States has fallen well behind its allies and its rivals in the Arctic, in part because members of Vance’s political party denied for decades the reality of global warming, which has made it hard for the U.S. Navy to persuade Congress of the need to commission icebreakers. [. . .]

“As with everything Musk-Trump does, however, the cui bono question about imperialism in Greenland is easy to answer: Russia benefits. Putin cannot contain his delight with American imperialism over Greenland. In generating artificial crises in relations with both Denmark and Canada, America’s two closest allies these last eighty years, the Trump people cut America loose from security gains and create a chaos in which Russia benefits.

“The American imperialism directed towards Denmark and Canada is not just morally wrong. It is strategically disastrous. The United States has nothing to gain from it, and much to lose. There is nothing that Americans cannot get from Denmark or Canada through alliance. The very existence of the base at Pituffik shows that. Within the atmosphere of friendship that has prevailed the last eighty years, all of the mineral resources of Canada and Greenland can be traded for on good terms, or for that matter explored by American companies. The only way to put all of this easy access in doubt was to follow the course that Musk-Trump have chosen: trade wars with Canada and Europe, and the threat of actual wars and annexations. Musk-Trump are creating the bloodily moronic situation in which the United States will have to fight wars to get the things that, just a few weeks ago, were there for the asking. And of course wars rarely turn out the way one expects.

“As a parting shot, Vance told Greenlanders that life with the United States would be better than with Denmark. [. . .]

“So consider. The US is is 24th in the world in the happiness rankings. Not bad. But Denmark is number two (after Finland). On a scale of 1 to 100, Freedom House ranks Denmark 97 and the US 84 on freedom — and the US will drop a great deal this year. An American is about ten times more likely to be incarcerated than a Dane. Danes have access to universal and essentially free health care; Americans spend a huge amount of money to be sick more often and to be treated worse when they are. Danes on average live four years longer than Americans. In Denmark university education is free; the average balance owed by the tens of millions of Americans who hold student debt in the US is about $40,000. Danish parents share a year of paid parental leave. In the US, one parent might get twelve weeks of unpaid leave. Denmark has children’s story writer Hans Christian Andersen. The US has children’s story writer JD Vance. American children are about twice as likely as Danish children to die before the age of five.”





Juhasz on Trump’s fossil fuel shakedown of Ukraine

9 03 2025

As U.S. media have been softening their critical tool-kits under fear of retribution from the Trump administration, the lead in critical reporting seems to have been taken by a mix of individual bloggers (some of which I list here) and formerly secondary publications like Wired and Rolling Stone. The former has been doing brilliant reporting on the Musk-Trump axis. Now Rolling Stone has published an excellent cover story by Antonia Juhasz on the proposed U.S.-Ukraine “Minerals Deal.”

In “Is Trump’s ‘Minerals Deal’ a Fossil Fuel Shakedown?” Juhasz probes the details of the deal and interviews some well positioned experts — including the Brookings Institution’s Samantha Gross, who calls the deal “extortionist,” Maria Popova, author of Russia and Ukraine: Engangled Histories, Diverging States, and Ukrainian environmental lawyer and climate campaigner Svitlana Romanko. The article is paywalled, but Juhasz urges her readers in Facebook to “Please read, share, and act!”, so my sharing of large parts of it is an honoring of her request.

In that Facebook post, Juhasz notes that “Zelensky is on his way to Saudi Arabia next week, being forced into a corner by the unholy alliance of Putin and Trump and to sign an “extortionist” “neocolonial plundering” of Ukraine’s vast natural resource riches, giving Trump and Putin unprecedented control of fossil fuels and minerals.”

In the article, she writes:

The deal would cut open Ukraine’s natural resource veins, and could leave the majority of its key resources — including fossil fuels — under Russian control. Fifty percent of Ukraine’s future earnings from its remaining natural resource wealth would go into a new fund under U.S. direction into which the United States would contribute nothing. The deal could benefit American and other Western companies but would provide few economic and no security guarantees to Ukraine.

It’s a steep price to pay for peace, but Ukraine may be forced to accept the deal given how closely aligned the Trump regime has become with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump is also laying the groundwork for the full reentry of Russia into the global economy, opening the door to a return of U.S. fossil fuel giants into one of the largest pools of oil and gas in the world.

Read the rest of this entry »




Krishnan: on the “Bro” Left’s silence

3 03 2025

Kavita Krishnan, Indian civil rights activist and former long-time member of the Indian Communist Party, has written something that astutely captures a large part of the international Left’s reaction to the Russo-Ukrainian war.

It’s less true for the liberal left, but still the case for many on the Marxist hard left. Her article in today’s The Hindu, “Multiple bullies at work, our to create a ‘multipolar world,'” expands on it (and the title captures the argument well; see below for the article). In a Facebook post yesterday she wrote the following:

If Zelenskyy were Chavez, he would be a hero for the left all over the world. Instead we have some on the left giggling at what they think is his humiliation. While others are silent, scrambling to come up with a line that won’t require them to say they were dead wrong for the past three years.

They insisted the conflict in Ukraine was between unipolar West vs Multipolar Russia & Rest where the latter was the lesser evil “regardless of their regressive character”. Today when the thugs ruling the two “poles” joined up to bully a brave Ukraine, they are confused but can’t admit they’re wrong (the left “Bro” culture can never say they were wrong).

The Ukraine war and the rise of the illiberal multipolar world order (with Trumpist West as well as Putin, Xi, Modi etc as “poles”) will be the stuff of history books of the future. The left will cut a sorry figure – a clueless and complicit one – in those books.

“Regardless of the internal character of competing global powers, a multipolar world is certainly more advantageous to progressive forces and movements worldwide in their quest for reversal of neoliberal policies, social transformation and political advance.” – this quote from an Indian Left leader in the immediate wake of my leaving his party over Ukraine sums up the Realist folly of the left globally.

I was asked to leave my party of 30 years for predicting this very moment where two poles would beat up on the scrappy fighter of a democracy that’s Ukraine. Was told that I couldn’t remain in the party if I wanted to defend and cheer for Ukraine’s right to armed resistance.

Decent people everywhere in the world cheer Ukraine’s courageous resistance to two fascist bullies. The left is silent, trying to find a way not to.

(This article was amended slightly on March 3, to incorporate Krishnan’s op-ed.)





Z visits the emperor

1 03 2025

There was no mistake about yesterday’s reality-TV spectacle of Volodymyr Zelensky being berated by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

Trump may or may not be the world’s first reality-TV president, but he is certainly the world’s first reality-TV emperor. He would like the world to see him holding court as world leaders come to him like the three kings to Jesus.

Vance was clearly prepared to be his attack dog (his pro-Putin sympathies are known and perhaps even better understood than Trump’s). The MAGA-spiked press corps — like the Real America’s Voice correspondent (Brian Glenn, partner of Marjorie Taylor Greene) who attacked Zelensky for not wearing a suit — and the likelihood that Zelensky was treated this way all day preceding this press appearance, can all be considered part of the set-up for this stage. By failing to keep his cool, Zelensky fell into their trap. But the situation was calculated to make him do that.

But Zelensky also succeeded in demonstrating that truth need not so easily cave in to imperial niceties. That will go down better with many Ukrainians (57% of whom trust him, according to last week’s data), and with others around the world who care about democracy, liberty, and the other values the US has pretended to represent to the world, that Ukrainians today actually die for, and that Europeans are being called to defend. By the same token, caving into Trump’s attempted extortion of Ukraine’s “raw earth,” as he kept calling it, without any security guarantees, would likely not have served Zelensky well.

Peace, in this case, will not be found through the “deal” Trump wants, which seems calculated to give Putin everything he wants, or close to it, and to give the US something “back” for the money it’s spent (which is far less than Trump claims), as if that will magically lead to Russia abstaining from chewing off more of Ukraine in the future, and of regaining the political-economic and informational influence it had over Ukrainians until 2014.

There’s a case to be made that someone must lead the “free world,” now that Trump has dislodged any idea that there even is such a world. (It’s a problematic idea, to be sure, but not entirely lacking in substance.) From that perspective, Zelensky did pretty well in reminding leaders that emperors do not deserve everything they ask for.

It’s also important, in this context, to remind people that there’s a neo-imperial vision at play here — one in which Trump would like to get “his” North America, from Panama to Greenland and the Arctic, along with pieces elsewhere (the Gaza strip, Ukraine), while allowing his global peers (Putin and Xi) to rule their own spheres of influence through unchecked power.

What’s at stake, in other words, is the fledgling world order of sovereign nations (at least some of which are democratic), international agreements (on topics from climate change to nuclear proliferation), and the rule of something resembling law.





The emergent neo-imperial reconfiguration

19 02 2025

This blog has been quiet since before the inauguration of Donald Trump, but I’ve been writing things at my other blog, Immanence, which are as relevant to Ukraine as they are to the topics explored there (ecology, philosophy, politics, media). That’s because all of these issues have become rolled into one.

Edgar Morin’s term “polycrisis” is sometimes used to get at the ways in which numerous cascading crises — ecological, climatic, economic, technological (e.g., misinformation and echo-chambered social media, artificial intelligence getting out of hand), biological (e.g., viral outbreaks like the Covid pandemic), et al. — combine to make a kind of perfect storm. With the takeover of the U.S. by Trump, Musk (his unelected co-leader), and the Project 2025 folks, and now their seemingly emergent alliance with Russia against Ukraine (how else to explain Vance’s comments in Munich and now Trump’s declaration that Zelensky “should never have started” the war with Russia?), we clearly have a dramatic destabilization of the world-system into a new configuration.

I describe that configuration here as a “multipolar, neo-imperial one in which oligarchic empires can dominate their ‘spheres of influence’ in whatever way they like,” with democracy having “nothing to do with it” and power having everything. (On that same page I provide a resource guide to writers and web sites to follow in these rapidly changing times.)

More recently I’ve written about the importance of media, and specifically the importance for people to regain control of social media from the tech oligarchs who are squelching any possibility for useful information to triumph over useless information, disinformation, and misinformation. (Pekka Kallioniemi’s thread on X about Elon Musk’s Election Interference Machine is a pretty good summary of one of the most powerful prongs of that squelching.)

In any case, I am likely to be posting much more there than here for the simple reason that Ukraine is now the unmistakable victim of this new configuration of political, economic, and media power that we might call “emergent global techno-authoritarian neo-imperialism,” or something like that. To keep it simple, we could call it “technofascism,” or “kleptofascism,” or one of the other terms being thrown around.

It’s all evolving very rapidly (see Christina Pagel’s running summary of the U.S. wing of that neo-imperialism, and also of resistance against it), but eventually we’ll see what sticks. And how resistance will build. It’s the only hope not only for Ukraine, but for all of us.





“Russiagate” rides again?

4 12 2024

With Trump’s re-election and his cabinet nominations of right-wing propagandists like Kash Patel, we are certain to be hearing a lot more (again) about “Russiagate” or the “Russia hoax,” how it was fabricated by the Democrats to attack Trump, and how the “mainstream media” colluded with them in it. That narrative has remained alive in the right-wing media ecosystem, as it suited Trump’s electoral ambitions and now suits his desire for vengeance against his critics. Its resonance in parts of the political left is perhaps more surprising, and it’s what I want to address here.

The following provides a synopsis of what’s at stake in this re-emergence of “Russiagate” and some resources to help us make sense of it. This is by no means a comprehensive account; it represents thinking-in-progress.

Read the rest of this entry »




Sotsialnyi Rukh: The path to victory

20 10 2024

Ukraine’s Left movement Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) recently held a conference in Kyiv, at which members adopted a resolution entitled “The path to victory and the tasks of the Ukrainian left.” The resolution has now appeared in English translation here. I reproduce it below.

(Founded in 2015 by “Ukrainian leftists of different backgrounds who participated in the revolutionary events of the so-called Euromaidan of 2013-14,” Sotsialnyi Rukh calls itself a movement based on “principles of democratic anti-capitalism, feminism, and ecosocialism,” including “radical deoligarchization of Ukraine.”)

Here’s the resolution. (Thanks to LINKS for the translation.)

Read the rest of this entry »




‘Ecocide’ update

7 10 2024

Nathan Greenfield has compiled an excellent set of current and recent observations from scholars on the continuing ecocide occurring as a result of Russia’s war on Ukraine. I’m in there, among others, but the more first-hand information comes from environmental scientists working in Ukraine, like Kseniia Bondar, Viktor Vyshnevskyi, Anna Kuzemko, and Mykhailo Yatsiuk.

You can read the full article, “Ukrainian scholars track war-related ecocide in real time,” at University World News.





Ukrainian History Global Initiative

16 09 2024

As announced last fall, a group of prominent historians are launching what may be the largest scholarly mega-project in Ukraine’s history.

With initial funding from Ukrainian billionnaire (and oligarch) Viktor Pinchuk and support from the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the Ukrainian History Global Initiative‘s list of advisors and researchers reads like a “who’s who” of Ukrainian academe. It features not only several of the leading historians of modern and contemporary Ukraine — Serhii Plokhy, Yaroslav Hrytsak, and Timothy Snyder among others — but also leading period/area specialists (Christian Raffensberger writing on diplomacy in medieval Rus’, Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern on Jewish history in Ukraine, Frank Sysyn on the Cossack era, Daniel Beauvois on Black Earth, Yuliya Yurchenko on inequality, and Phillips O’Brien on “wars for Ukraine”), world-renowned scholars not known for their work on Ukraine (such as environmental historian John McNeill and archaeologist David Wengrow), and well-known figures in arts and letters including Yuval Harari, Fareed Zakaria, Timothy Garton Ash, Anne Applebaum, “forensic architect” Eyal Weizman, Ukraine-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev, and renowned Ukrainian poet Serhii Zhadan.

Some 50 of the project’s 90 scholars are Ukrainians, and the planned three-year collaborative research project will result in scholarly as well as popular texts in English and Ukrainian on almost every aspect of Ukrainian history: from deep prehistory through Rus’ and the Cossack state to the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, with plenty of attention to wars of the past and the present, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, regional distinctions, and culture and the arts. If it succeeds in its goals, many of the topics discussed on this blog will have an additional, and hopefully authoritative, set of references to cite and refer to.

Further information can be read at the Ukrainian History Global Initiative web site.








Skip to toolbar