UKR-TAZ

In “How Fascist is Putinism?“, German political scientist and veteran Ukraine watcher Andreas Umland thoroughly examines and assesses the arguments and counter-arguments for considering Putinism to be a form of fascism. If there’s a single scholarly article to recommend on this topic, it is probably this one.

Umland shows that while it’s still quite possible to argue that Putinism is not fascism, this requires either a rather strict definition of what fascism is (and an eagerness to highlight the ways it still fails that definition), or a nuanced empirical eye that sees Putinism not as one thing but a hodgepodge, and therefore not only fascist. To argue that it is not fascist at all, however, seems to be stretching credulity. The answer is, at best, a matter of degree.

Among his conclusions:

“Russia’s armed forces and occupational administration in Ukraine behave, especially since 2022, in a manifestly terroristic, genocidal, ecocidal, and sometimes even sadist manner. Against this dreadful background, it seems strange to insist that Russia’s policies and the ideas behind them are clearly, absolutely and unquestionably non-fascist.”

On the other hand,

“An exclusive explanation of Russia’s motivation for its policies in Ukraine and elsewhere with ultra-nationalist maximalism limits understanding of the motivations behind the so-called ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine. [. . .] The initial impulse for the full-scale invasion was, nevertheless, less growing ultra-nationalist fanaticism than misinformed power-political cynicism within Putin’s regime.”

More to the point, however:

“The longer and the more successful Russia’s war against Ukraine is, the more prominent and influential fascist Russian actors, ideas and networks will become in Russia as well as beyond.”

Umland’s article is based on a chapter in Russia and Modern Fascism: New Perspectives on the Kremlin’s War Against Ukraine, edited by Ian Garner and Taras Kuzio (ibidem Press, September 2025, ISBN 9783838220154, 350pp, paperback, $40.00).

It can be read in its entirety here.

Historian and left-wing activist Vladyslav Starodubtsev is becoming a prominent spokesperson for Ukraine’s “left-republican tradition,” a tradition he identifies with some of the leaders of Ukraine’s national awakening in the late 1800s, and with those that led the efforts to create a social-democratic Ukrainian state in the years 1917 through about 1922 or so, a period that ended with the consolidation of Soviet control over Ukraine.

Suzi Weissman recently interviewed Starodubtsev for Jacobin Radio, and the two spent more time — almost an hour — discussing the 1917-1922 years than most people have ever spent thinking about those years at all, let alone what they looked like in Ukraine. As the web site puts it, the interview examines “the Ukrainian People’s Republic of 1917-1923, born in the revolutionary upheavals of 1905, WWI, and the February 1917 Russian Revolution. Built on grassroots power from peasants, workers, soldiers, and cooperatives, the Ukrainian People’s Republic legislated sweeping land reform, gender equality, national-personal autonomy for ethnic minorities, and a cooperative economy. It did not last.”

In an opinion piece published a few days ago in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper (“The Ukraine emergency is far from over – because Donald Trump is the emergency,” August 21, 2025), popular center-right columnist Andrew Coyne writes about the “three possible explanations for Mr. Trump’s seeming capture by Mr. Putin.” (Coyne is the journalist whose writing following the re-election of Donald Trump made the rounds widely for its prescient prognostication of what was to come.)

The three “possible explanations” closely parallel the three hypotheses that I had written about last week, except that they fail to mention the one I spent much of that article discussing.

My first two hypotheses, which I called the “conspiratorial” (that Putin “has something on him,” in Coyne’s words) and the “psychoanalytical” (that Trump’s particular form of pathological narcissism lends him to looking up to certain kinds of men) are covered by Coyne, though the latter becomes a little vague: Coyne writes that, in this rendition, Trump

has simply been rolled by him, over and over – whether because he has some sort of inexplicable man-crush on him, or because of Mr. Putin’s adroit application of flattery to the suppurating wounds of Mr. Trump’s ego, or because of Mr. Trump’s peculiar susceptibility to the kind of simple-minded, lumpen-left ‘when you think about it, the West are really the bad guys’ arguments favoured by your stoner roommate in first year.

Coyne’s third explanation, however, merely repeats a variation of the second: “that Mr. Trump just happens to agree with him. Mr. Putin is a dictator. Mr. Trump would like to be one.” Coyne misses the all-important “realist” explanation I had written about, which is rooted in a particular constellation of political-economic relations, especially those of fossil fuels.

Now, Rolling Stone’s star writer on these topics, Antonia Juhasz, has penned a piece that provides many more details to support the contention that the Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska was largely about joint fossil fuel dealmaking (“Inside Putin’s Fossil-Fueled Victory Lap in Alaska,“ August 23, 2025).

As Juhasz puts it,

Maksym Eristavi’s Russian Colonialism 101 is an effectively written, sprightly illustrated romp through the last few centuries of Russian colonialism, the last of the undeconstructed European colonialisms still standing. His Russian Colonialism 101 substack continues Eristavi’s work in deconstructing that colonialism in all its forms.

In “david: and why not platforming russian culture is justice,” Eristavi writes evocatively about Ukrainian anarchist artist David Chichkan, his illustrated Ukrainian Code on Administrative Offences, so-called “cancel culture,” and Western imperialist complicity.

A few quotes:

There are three main hypotheses explaining Donald Trump’s eagerness to please Vladimir Putin.

The first is “conspiratorial”: that Putin has something over Trump, related perhaps to the Steele dossier, Trump’s real estate shenanigans, the KGB’s long-term efforts to cultivate Trump as a “Russian asset,” or maybe even the Epstein files (Trump and Putin do, after all, connect within the ranks of the uber-rich masculinist jet set, where sexist pedophilia seems readily appeasable).

The second is psychoanalytical: that Trump is a pathological narcissist with a fragile father-damaged ego, and that he only looks up to other, more “successfully” imperial father figures. Putin is one of the few who fit his criteria.

The third is “realist,” which acknowledges that there are benefits, from Trump’s perspective, to a cozier relationship with Russia. Allying with Russia could, for instance, steer the latter away from China. More importantly, and more specifically these days, is that Russia is a fossil fuel superpower — and Trump’s authority is also reliant on a perpetuation of the global power of fossil fuels. Rehabilitating Putin will enable Trump to “make deals” around Russia’s only assets, which are its oil and gas deposits. When other prices are rising all around Trump, he could at least keep gas prices down by dealing directly with Putin.

The Silicon Curtain podcast — which describes itself as “a channel about propaganda, digital disinformation, politics, corruption, hybrid warfare, weaponised conspiracy theories, social echo chambers and digital dystopias” — is an excellent place to hear astute analyses of all things Russia. Their last few episodes, including “Did the Global Media Fall for a Giant Geopolitical Con?“, “Trump’s Surrender to Putin is Far Worse than Most People Realize,” and “Oil was Greasing the Gears of War, Not Peace at the Alaska Summit” — have covered various angles of the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska. The last is particularly insightful about the fossil-fuel dimensions of the meeting.

A few quotes:

Ukraine may be the only country in the world where black-and-red flags can signify either anarcho-syndicalism — which they mostly do in the photos below, from David Chichkan’s funeral ceremony in Kyïv yesterday — or the right-wing nationalism associated with the world war two era OUN and UPA partisan armies. (Those armies and their followers today are commonly known as “Banderites” in honor of ultranationalist leader Stepan Bandera, who’s become a symbol of all things anti-Russian, though the flag long pre-dates Bandera and has been used well beyond the paramilitary legacy associated with him.)

In some cases they can even be both, as with Ukraine’s national anarchists or anarcho-nationalists. (On anarchism and the Russo-Ukrainian war, see here, here, here, and here.) Sometimes, the “Banderite” flag features red over black horizontal bands, while the anarchist flag features the two in diagonal bands, but that’s not always the case.

Irrespectively, the loss of anarchist artist David Chichkan is felt by many, and his funeral ceremonies featured many red-and-black flags alongside others. Posting about yesterday’s ceremony, Nataliya Gumenyuk, co-founder of Hromadske independent media, the Public Interest Journalism Lab, and The Reckoning Project, wrote [my translation]:

VoxEurop has a nice piece about Ukraine’s Solidarity Collectives (anti-authoritarian brigades defending Ukraine from Russian aggression). Entitled “Anarchists in Wartime: The Experience of Ukraine’s Solidarity Collectives in Ukraine,” it covers the decimation of left-wing alternatives (to the Communist Party) in the Soviet Union and the revival of alternatives since 1991, as well as reflections on the 2014 Revolution of Dignity and what’s happened since then.

A few excerpts:

The Kyiv Post has just published a very interesting opinion piece by documentary filmmaker and constitutional attorney DW Phillips, entitled “How the Epstein Case Impacts Ukraine.”

While it clearly oversimplifies things (as newspaper op-eds tend to do), Phillips’s main claim captures the obsessions of certain key people within the MAGA movement’s post-QAnon “Woke Right” rather well. I’m thinking especially of Tucker Carlson, but also of Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others influential in MAGA world.

Phillips argues that the twin pillars of MAGA ideology for the last few years have been “Epstein” and “Ukraine” — not the person and the nation, but what they have come to stand for. And so, with Donald Trump’s recent denial that there’s anything at all to be seen there, the whole house of cards is at risk of coming down.

I recommend the piece, which can be read here.

As I prepare to give a talk on Ukraine (my first after my recent visit there), I’m also preparing some simple answers to two questions that I expect to get.

Since the talk is in the United States, the question “What should the U.S. do?” will likely come up, even if the questioner knows it’s a virtually inoperable question in the context of a Trump presidency. The second question, about NATO, is really just rhetorical, but I can be virtually guaranteed that someone will raise something about it. I answer both below.

What should the U.S. do?

We should begin with what it should not do, and that’s to withdraw support from Ukraine. As we’ve already seen, that only encourages Putin to think he can “win” this war and achieve his goals. He’s made clear repeatedly that his main goal is to subordinate as much of Ukraine as possible to Russian control. Achieving that will not be possible without sending more Russian men to their deaths in the effort to kill more Ukrainians, resulting in more bloodshed, more bombing, more trauma all around, and ultimately more police-state machinations once the goal would be (hypothetically) attained. This should therefore be a non-starter (though we know it’s exactly what Trump has been doing).

As for what it should do:

1. The U.S. should support Ukraine both rhetorically and militarily, for reasons that include its obligations to guarantee Ukrainian security under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. (That the Trump administration recently “disappeared” the Budapest Memorandum from U.S. government web sites is a telling indicator that it never plans to do this.)
2. The U.S. should work with other countries to apply greater economic pressure not only on Russia, but also on countries that do business with Russia. Economic sanctions by the EU have turned Russia — quite successfully — to other countries (China, India, Iran, et al.) for the oil and gas revenues that sustain it. If business with Russia were turned into an instrument of negotiation with other countries (as Trump’s infamous tariffs are intended to do), then this could become useful leverage.
3. Economic pressure should also make more use of the Russian financial assets — numbering in the hundreds of billions of dollars — that have been temporarily “frozen” as part of the sanctions regime. How to make use of these is complicated, but any genuine leverage requires the possibility of directing these funds toward the defense and post-war reconstruction of Ukraine.
4. The U.S. should apply diplomatic pressure toward a resolution that respects international agreements, and it should do this in the context of a foreign policy that does that everywhere. (That means in Israel and Gaza, in Iran, and elsewhere around the world.) While the Biden administration fell rather short of this goal, the Trump administration is falling far, far shorter.

What about NATO?

I phrase this indirectly, since the question is almost always a rhetorical one. But answering it requires identifying first principles, which for me are two:

1. NATO should be expected to fulfill its mission as a defense alliance protecting its members and devoted to safeguarding “the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” To the extent that its member countries remain democratic, their voice in NATO should be respected. If some fall away from those principles (I’m looking at Hungary, Slovakia, and a few others), their role should be diminished or they should be pressured to withdraw from the alliance. Of course, that’s complicated, but remembering the organization’s founding principles is important.
2. NATO should not be guided by the self-serving goals of the military-industrial complex. (That’s where I agree with many others on the political left.) Defense should be defense for the sake of democracy, rule of law, etc., and not for the sake of the defense industry. That said, keeping in mind the neo-imperializing state of the world means that the path toward peace is more complicated today than it might have appeared a few decades ago. If it were still the early 1990s, we could dream of a world without military alliances like NATO. It no longer is that time.

Further reading:

• International Crisis Group, “A Frozen Conflict: The Dilemmas of Seizing Russia’s Money for Ukraine,” 17 June 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/caucasus/russia-internal-ukraine/frozen-conflict-dilemmas-seizing-russias-money-ukraine
• International Lawyers Project/Spotlight on Corruption, “Frozen Russian Assets and the Reconstruction of Ukraine,” July 2022, https://wrmcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Frozen-Russian-Assets-Ukraine-Legal-Options-Report-WRMC-July2022.pdf
• Sara Z. Kutchesfahani, “How the Budapest Memorandum paved the way for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” Outrider, 29 June 2022, https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/how-budapest-memorandum-paved-way-russias-invasion-ukraine
• Immanence, “End of the Interregnum, or just the beginning of its end?” 6 March 2025, https://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2025/03/06/end-of-the-interregnum-or-just-the-beginning-of-its-end/