It is interesting to notice that, in Latin America, the Russian invasion of Ukraine found many supporters in the left, unlike what happened in the United States (and in most of Europe), where such support is mostly found in right-wing circles (which, by the way, also happened In Latin America, leaving us with the unusual situation of both extremes of the political spectrum supporting the same side in an international conflict).
The reasons behind the position taken by a sizeable portion of the Latin American left are not difficult to identify: their deep-rooted anti-Americanism, a misplaced sense of loyalty towards Russia because of its Soviet past, and the longing for a multipolar world.
As we can see, the reasons for left-wing support of Russia in Latin America are completely different than those behind American right-wing sympathy for Putin – to some extent they are contradictory. But there is one common element: the desire (albeit for different reasons) for a retrenchment of the United States, the perception that the country has overextended its presence throughout the world.
It is no surprise, therefore, that among the various justifications offered by the Russian government (and its propaganda machine) for the invasion (which include fighting a “nazi” government in Kiyv and protecting Russian minorities in Eastern Ukraine), none has gained more traction among the more articulate members of the American right and the Latin American left than putting the blame on the expansion of NATO, using the same rationale as the one employed by Mearsheimer in this week’s reading, when talking about the invasion of Crimea in 2014.
***
Latin American and US Putin apologists profess to be adopting, therefore, a “realist” approach to interpret (in reality, to justify) the invasion of Ukraine.
I find it really hard to view as “realist” an invasion that, for many different, reasons, will render Russia weaker and more exposed to foreign menaces than it was a mere couple of years ago. As Professor Wallerstein already pointed out, the invasion contributed to a further expansion of NATO, and reenergized the alliance. The abysmal performance of Russian armed forces in Ukraine surely decreased the fear and respect they commanded abroad. Russia demographic issues are being further complicated by the very large number of casualties in the front and the flight of many young Russians after the war started. The war has arguably enfeebled the Russian sponsored Collective Security Treaty Organization. In September 2022 Azerbaijan initiated its largest attack on the Republic of Armenia in the history of the conflict between the two countries. Armenia has unsuccessfully requested that the Collective Security Treaty Organization and Russia independently intervene. Russia declined to provide assistance, in a decision probably linked to the extensive use of troops in Ukraine. The economic sanctions imposed by Western countries, although not being able to completely cripple the Russian economy, have significantly impacted it, and have turned Russia even more dependent on the trade with China. The political and economic bridges with Germany, painstakingly built since the 1960s, have been suddenly severed. The list could go on and is bound to become larger the longer the conflict lasts.
One reply on “Week 3 – Murilo”
Murilo,
Another great blog post! It is indeed a highly curious fact that there is this conjunction of interest between Left and Right over the war in Ukraine. What makes it even more curious–and worrisome–is that many of those supporting Putin’s invasion seem oblivious to the actual facts on the ground. ALL of the rationales that the Russians have used in their propaganda are completely bogus, beginning with the allegation that Zelensky government is neo-Nazi. The REAL rationale for the invasion is revanchism and Putin’s long-held desire to reclaim as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. –Professor Wallerstein