As many people know, Volodymyr Zelenskiy played a Ukrainian president in the television series Servant of the People before becoming Ukraine’s president in real life, and that irony led many not to take him seriously — as if a president who previously served in the KGB is better.
Less well known is the basic plot of the series.
Zelenskiy played Vasily Petrovich Goloborodko, a schoolteacher whose students record him ranting about corruption, share the video online — where it goes viral — and then sign him up as a candidate in the country’s next presidential election. Having unwittingly tapped into Ukrainians’ widespread frustration over corruption, Goloborodko wins, faces a steep learning curve in office and eventually confronts the country’s oligarchy from his new position of power.
The show’s depiction of Ukraine is apt. Of all the post-communist countries in Eastern Europe, it was the hardest hit by economic “shock therapy” — sweeping market reforms and privatization — in the 1990s. For three decades since independence, Ukrainian incomes have remained below where they were in 1990. Corruption has been rampant, and the courts have proven to be a farce.
As Luca Celada wrote in the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto: “The ‘conversion’ to capitalism has followed the usual pattern: a class of oligarchs and a narrow elite have enriched themselves disproportionately by despoiling the public sector with the complicity of the political class.”
Moreover, financial assistance from the West has always been “strongly tied to reforms that Ukraine was required to implement, all under the banner of fiscal restraint and austerity,” further immiserating much of the population, Celada wrote.
Such is the legacy of the capitalist West’s engagement with post-independence Ukraine.
Meanwhile, my sources in Russia tell me that Russian President Vladimir Putin has assembled a group of Marxists to counsel him on how to present Russia’s position in the developing world. One can find traces of this influence in the speech he gave on Aug. 16.
“The situation in the world is changing dynamically and the outlines of a multipolar world order are taking shape,” Putin said. “An increasing number of countries and peoples are choosing a path of free and sovereign development based on their own distinct identity, traditions and values. These objective processes are being opposed by the Western globalist elites, who provoke chaos, fanning long-standing and new conflicts, and pursuing the so-called containment policy, which in fact amounts to the subversion of any alternative, sovereign development options.”
Of course, two details spoil this “Marxist” critique.
First, sovereignty “based on their own distinct identity, traditions and values” implies that one should tolerate what the state is doing in places such as North Korea or Afghanistan. Yet that is completely out of step with true leftist solidarity, which focuses squarely on antagonisms within each “distinct identity” to build bridges between struggling and oppressed groups across countries.
Second, Putin objects to “the subversion of any alternative, sovereign development options,” even though that is exactly what he is doing in Ukraine by seeking to deprive its people of self-determination.
Putin is not alone in pushing this pseudo-Marxist line. In France, the far-right National Rally leader and French National Assembly member Marine Le Pen now presents herself as the protector of ordinary working people against multinational corporations, which are said to be undermining national identities through the promotion of multiculturalism and sexual depravity.
In the US, the alt-right succeeds the old radical left with its calls to overthrow the “deep state.”
Former US president Donald Trump’s once-strategist Steve Bannon is a self-proclaimed Leninist who sees a coalition of the alt-right and the radical left as the only way to end the reign of financial and digital elites. (Lest we forget the progenitor of this model, Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.)
More is at stake in Ukraine than many commentators seem to appreciate. In a world beset by the effects of climate change, fertile land is an increasingly valuable asset, and if there is one thing Ukraine has in abundance, it is chernozem (“black earth”), an extraordinarily fertile soil with high concentrations of humus, phosphoric acids, phosphorus and ammonia.
That is why US and Western European agricultural business firms have already bought up millions of hectares of Ukrainian farmland — with just 10 private companies reportedly controlling most of it.
Well aware of the threat of dispossession, the Ukrainian government imposed a moratorium on land sales to foreigners 20 years ago. For years thereafter, the US Department of State, the IMF, and the World Bank repeatedly called for this restriction to be removed.
It was only last year that the Zelenskiy government, under immense pressure, started allowing farmers to sell their land. The moratorium on sales to foreigners remains in place, however, and Zelenskiy has said that lifting it must be put to a national referendum, which would almost certainly fail.
Nonetheless, the cruel irony is that, before Putin launched a war to colonize Ukraine by force, there was some truth to the Russian argument that Ukraine was becoming a Western economic colony. If the conflict has any silver lining, it is that the neoliberal project has been put on hold.
Since war demands social mobilization and a coordination of production, it offers Ukraine a unique chance to halt its expropriation by foreign corporate and financial entities and to rid itself of oligarchic corruption.
In pursuing this opportunity, Ukrainians must bear in mind that it is not enough simply to join the EU and catch up to Western living standards. Western democracy itself is now in deep crisis, with the US veering toward ideological civil war, and Europe being challenged by authoritarian spoilers from within its own ranks.
More immediately, if Ukraine can achieve a decisive military victory (as we should all hope), it would find itself deeply indebted to the US and the EU. Will it be able to resist even greater pressure to open itself up to economic colonization by Western multinationals?
This struggle is already playing out beneath the surface of Ukraine’s heroic resistance. It would be tragic if Ukraine defeated Russian neo-imperialism only to yoke itself to Western neoliberalism.
To secure genuine freedom and independence, Ukraine must reinvent itself. While being a Western economic colony is certainly better than being absorbed into a new Russian empire, neither outcome is worthy of the suffering Ukrainians are now enduring.
Slavoj Zizek is a professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London.
Copyright: Project Syndicate.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that