Thread by @andersostlund

The devotion to Russia among European leftists and its impact on security have to be addressed in Europe. While the far-right, for good reasons, is ostracized the far-left has managed to cling to influence. Their devotion to Russia remains a problem.

https://twitter.com/andersostlund/status/1484873551773683717

First, a note to Americans. The European left is far more left than the American. Many European leftists had a serious devotion to the USSR during the Cold War, they really believed in it. Often the left also took orders from Moscow.

For those too young to remember: Watch The Baader Meinhof Komplex. The first part of the movie portraits the ideology fairly well. Almost none of the leftists took to terror though, that should be stressed.
imdb.com/title/tt076543…

The leftists often belonged to the generation born around the time of WWII and many got involved in politics in the 60s and 70s, at the time for the student revolts i Europe.

In their youth today's leftists were often outright communists. The amount of letter combinations and sub-ideologies is was endless. There were Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists and many more directions.

It was a predominantly western European phenomenon. The leftists were often not from the working classes but rather the middle- and upper classes. They enjoyed the privileges of western society, such as freedom, democracy and good economic conditions.

Many of the leftists were outright brats. After a few years of rebellion they could easily slip back to comfortable positions in media, public employment, more main stream politics and even business.

Some of the things the left rebelled against were imperialism, consumerism, capitalism, wars, and conservative values. The foremost object of hatred was the United States. The USSR was seen as safeguarding the world from U.S. influence.

There were differences between the leftist movements in various countries but the grievances described above they often had in common. They demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, nuclear weapons and for peace in general to name a few.

The "freedom fighters" in the third world were heroes for the leftists. Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara and even Mao were popular, the dissidents in Eastern Europe were not.

Apart from the U.S. Israel was, and is, an object of hatred for the left. The Palestinian freedom fighters were a heroes.

For the record: I am not an academic expert in this field so I will go light on historical details and deep analysis. I base my thread on personal experiences and my knowledge as an amateur historian.

That many of the "liberation movements" called themselves communists or socialists just because that meant military support from the USSR was overlooked. So were the atrocities committed by the communist dictatorships.

Many leftist movements had strong ties to the Eastern European communist dictatorships, and, above all, of course Moscow. The Swedish communist leader even got his 40-year birthday party paid for by the GDR.

That many of the leftists took orders from Moscow is a well established fact and the amount of glorification of communist states in Europe and USSR were endless.

Many of the leftists were real idealists but their activities often benefitted the USSR. The fierce resistance to nuclear weapons deployments in Europe is one example. The peace movement is another one.

Eventually the leftists would suffer setbacks though. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan the movement stagnated somewhat, its growth faded. Many kept supporting Moscow though. The movement was still intact and powerful through the 80s.

The liberation and de-occupation of East Europe created a problem for the leftists. When the atrocities of the communist dictatorships became common knowledge it became harder to defend them. The movement lost some of its political power.

Many leftists took refuge in social democratic parties and somewhat softened their message. A former Swedish social democratic minister was an active Maoist before becoming social democrat for example.

What didn't happen after the fall of the USSR was that the supporters of world communism became ostracized. Despite the enormity of crimes committed by communist states the supporter avoided the fate of nazis after WWII.

That they escaped responsibility was clear also in East Europe were many communist leaders retired or began a new life outside politics. I am not arguing the leftists in the West should have all been jailed but it's significant they could move on like nothing happened.

In for example Sweden there were many former radical leftists that remained respected in politics, media, culture and held public offices. This despite that they had outright defended and supported the most horrible crimes committed against mankind.

The reason I bring this up today is that the leftists views still have a most unfortunate impact on resistance to Russia in Europe. There probably all kinds of reasons for this, and it take many expressions.

One can only speculate about why leftists would continue to support Russia when it has become one of the most brutal capitalist societies the world has ever seen, when Russia commit atrocities and invade neighbor democracies.

I think the primary reason the left remain loyal to Moscow is that its great objects of hatred still remain intact. The U.S., Israel and capitalism are still around and have continued to flourish.

I think the leftists feel enormous bitterness that their great enemy, the US, won the Cold War. The lefts hatred for the US is so strong that it can overlook just about any crime Russia commit as long as Russia oppose the US.

Considering anybody actively supporting Russia today will be marginalized the left is primarily passive supporters of Moscow. They obstruct resistance when they can, they support appeasement, they push dialogue, they push Moscows softer narratives.

Today the left tend to accept that Russia is encircled, that the color revolutions were fascist in nature, that Russia is protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine, that NATO actually pose a threat to Russia.

One example of leftist's influence is the frantic hunt for nazis in Ukraine. Yes, there were far-right people on Maidan but there were also Rabbis on Maidan and the LGBTQ-movement supported EuroMaidan as well.

Pay attention to how often Russia's perspective is presented without any mention of Russia's wars and it's atrocities against the populations in the occupied territories. You can speak Russian all over Ukraine but try speaking Ukrainian in public in Crimea or occupied Donbass.

I should of course mention that Europe's, and now also the US', far right movements are very pro-Russia. But many far right movements in Europe are more or less openly too extremist, too violent and too nutty to get real influence in national politics or public debate.

One have to ask who is more dangerous: A far-right nutcase screaming and throwing rocks in the streets while openly promoting racism or an older leftist in a high public office with power to block resistance against Russia?

In today's Europe the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is an example. He is a leftist from 70s who has climbed into Europe's most powerful political office. In his youth he was a supporter of Marx and a strong opponent of the "aggressive-imperialist NATO".

How much of the opposition towards the United States and NATO does Scholz still have? We are all very formative in our youth. Believes formed in our teens and early adulthood tend to follow us for life. Scholz cannot afford to support Russia now, but he can obstruct resistance.

Imagine a person who was a nazi in his youth as German Chancellor today. Unthinkable. But a person that defended tyranny and tolerated enormous crimes against humanity. Not only possible but a fact.

I argue that Olaf Scholz is the most dangerous person in Europe now, not because he was the most radical leftist in his youth, but because he has the most power today. Despite being a promoter of one of the deadliest ideologies ever he has managed to become a world leader.

Apart from Scholz there are many former radical leftists in positions of power in Europe today. The Russia Crisis sheds light on them, which is a positive side effect I guess. Even the radicals have a hard time defending aggression, so they stick with appeasement today.

For a long time I thought the radical leftists were about to leave the scene for good. They became older and with retirement they would lose their influence. I am now concerned that is not the case. There are signs of a younger generation of Russia apologists entering the stage.

Kevin Kühnert @KuehniKev, who was born in 1989, now has the powerful office of General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party, Germany's leading coalition partner.

Recently @KuehniKev gave an interview for Reuters where he defended Nord Stream 2.
reuters.com/markets/commod…

Of course it's significant that a social democrat like @KuehniKev defend a commercial project owned by one of the most brutal capitalist corporations, Gazprom, and tightly linked to Kreml, and we shall get back to that. But there are other things equally worrying.

In the same interview with Reuters @KuehniKev trivialize war and human rights crimes, calling them territorial controversies and human rights issues respectively. Defending NordStream, trivializing war and oppression. 32 years old, powerful, social democrat in modern Europe.

First the Nord Streams. It really doesn't matter what Germany thinks about them, for Russia they were geopolitical projects meant to strengthen Russia's power in Eastern Europe in general, and over Ukraine in particular. This has been clear all along for anybody with open eyes.

As @UmlandAndreas argue in the attached article the Nord Streams are about removing Ukraine's leverage towards Russia and thus make it possible for Russia to reoccupy Ukraine. @KuehniKev was probably aware of this when he defended Nord Stream 2.
euractiv.com/section/global…

From Russia's side the Nord Stream pipelines are together nothing else than a modern version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Russia provide the energy, Germany the machines. Russia gets its zone of influence, Germany its.

Ukraine's pipelines could have been upgraded instead of Nord Stream but then Russia wouldn't get its military advantage, to fight wars against Ukraine without risk of losing the gas exports. @KuehniKev ignored the war when he supported Nord Stream 2.

That Russia can dominate Ukraine because of the Nord Stream pipelines not only risk war but the occupation of Ukraine, with all the enormous risks of human rights crimes that would involve.

Russia's war against Ukraine has been going on for almost eight years, 14k people have perished, but @KuehniKev refer to the war as "territorial dispute". This is an outrageous statement. That statement expose a terrible and inhumane world view.

Soon after @KuehniKev trivialized war and human rights crimes he was called out as by prominent Ukrainian ant Russia colonialism and #LGBTQ rights activist @MaximEristavi.

Instead of responding, an apology and withdrawal of the statement should have been made, @KuehniKev promptly block @MaximEristavi.

What is also fascinating is that @KuehniKev calls himself anti-fascist. Nord Stream is a geopolitical project to control Eastern Europe. Russia support fascist movements all over Europe. Supporting Russia and being anti-fascist are two opposing things, they cannot be combined.

.@KuehniKev can attend as many anti-fascist rallies as he wants, it will never compensate for supporting a project that feeds Russian wars and oppression, and European fascism, with billions of euros each year.

The reason I stay with @KuehniKev so long is that he is young, grew up in a free society, preach solidarity and anti-fascism, is openly homosexual and more. All those things he want to deny Russians, Ukrainians and other Eastern Europeans.

I bet its hard to come out as homosexual in any country but in Russia it's outright dangerous and it was in Ukraine too before EuroMaidan and activists like @MaximEristavi finally managed to improve things for the #LGBTQ community.

One would expect the young progressives in western Europe to stand on the barricades and argue for active resistance against Russian aggression and oppression, to defend other young people in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine who suffer from Russian oppression. But so far nothing.

That radicals like Scholz can reach the top of a democratic society, that young "progressives" with ease support Russia and that the Russia-apologizing left in general aren't ostracized is astonishing and a bad omen for Europe. The lack of solidarity and compassion is brutal.

Swedish public service TV's, @svtnyheter, star reporter: "In what is seen as Russian aggression". If Russia has been aggressive is thus a matter of opinion, not facts? Typical example of passive support for Russia.
svt.se/nyheter/inrike…

Statements made by the now resigned German navy chief, that "Putin should be given the respect he probably deserves, Crimea will never be returned to Ukraine" are worrying. How widespread are those views in the German establishment, what is the origin?
ft.com/content/9b117e…

https://twitter.com/andersostlund/status/1484850218277425155

https://twitter.com/Bobrovska_MP/status/1485170712453201931

Swedish regional newspaper addressing the phenomenon with the missing "peace movement". Why are they not demonstrating this time. Maybe something that warrant more attention, what do you think @patrikoksanen?
blt.se/ledare/var-hal…

@patrikoksanen Scholz continue to be soft and divisive on Russia.

https://twitter.com/business/status/1485283447757320202