We need to talk about #Westplaining.
It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy.
Thread/
Those I read on the Eastern European left really hate Westplaining. Why? Because it denies their lived reality. It supposes that anyone living beyond 15° East has no agency, and is passively subject to the whims of Western strategy.
It suggests that Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia etc were manipulated by the West into joining NATO, because they have no interests or will of their own. It suggests that Putin is a mere puppet of Western machinations, who can be yanked about as if he were made of rags.
It’s a classic colonial trope, a subject-object relationship. Only Westerners have agency and interests: the rest of the world is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled with meaning and intention by our good or evil schemes.
In particular, the Westplainer narrative suggests that the West set a trap for Russia that it couldn’t help walking into. Often, they talk of Russia as a bear, that has fallen into this trap. Because, of course, it has no human intelligence of its own.
Typically, these articles suggest a complete absence of engagement with Eastern European leftists. The references are to other Westerners. It’s a conversation they are having with each other, about people they have not met and to whom they do not listen.
Do Westplainers really think they know something that the Kremlin doesn’t? That after a couple of hours googling, they've seen into the dark heart of Western strategy, and the Russian government hasn’t? That Putin is being led blindly into a trap they have spotted and he hasn't?
This story suits Putin very well, and he tells a cynical version of it himself: I was provoked, I had no choice, Russia is encircled by NATO and has to strike back. It is used to disguise a highly aggressive, imperialist strategy of his own.
It’s notable that some of those who treat him as a mindless victim of Western scheming are also happy to recite blatant Kremlin propaganda, for example grossly overemphasising the influence of Ukrainian fascists, and describing the 2014 revolution as a “US coup”.
The “US coup” meme has the remarkable distinction of simultaneously channeling both Russian imperial and Western imperial propaganda: “those little Ukrainians couldn’t possibly have organised their own revolution, could they? It must have been done for them - by us.”
None of this is to suggest that the US and Europe do not have their own grim strategy. They do, and it can be just as cynical and aggressive as the Westplainers say it is. But the point is that it does not exist in a vacuum.
Nor is it unknown to either the Kremlin or to people living in countries that border the Russian Federation. Nor are they without responses and strategies of their own.
Reading the responses to this thread, it seems to me that some people are trying to force Ukraine in the 2020s into a frame that might have worked for Latin America in the 1980s. The world has changed, but their analysis has not.
1. The one benefit of Brexit was a new farm subsidy system, paying for public goods like ecological restoration. But now the government has frozen the new grants, while swiftly cutting off the old ones, leaving farmers high and dry. It's deeply unfair and highly destructive. 🧵
2. It will leave farmers who started investing in restoration out of pocket, and destroy their faith in the green transition. The sharpness of the transition will drive some to bankruptcy.
3. Two obvious questions:
A. What is the government playing at?
B. Where are the big environmental NGOs who asked for this transition, but are now failing to defend it? Why are they not raising hell about this betrayal?
1. People are objecting to my lashing of academics and intellectuals in today's column. I understand this. Here’s my reasoning. I chose examples of topics that are endlessly circled by researchers with ever diminishing returns, while huge and existential questions are ignored.🧵
2. I see the obsession with the Bloomsbury Group etc as highfalutin celebrity culture. The effort and attention spent on it, in scholarship, publishing and reviews, seems to me to signal a deep sickness at the heart of intellectual endeavour. It has a name. Denial.
3. It reminds me of Eliot’s comparison of the mindless gossip in the pub with the mindless gossip in the high society salon in Part II of The Wasteland:
"‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’
But O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag -
It’s so elegant
So intelligent"
1. A few days ago, I wrote a thread about the pros and cons of staying on this platform and asked for your views. They were very helpful. As a result, I’ve decided to stop using X from January 20. Already I’m mostly posting now on BlueSky (@georgemonbiot.bsky.social) instead.🧵
2. I won’t delete this account, as I don’t want to lose the archive. But I won’t post anything here after then. Will you join me in setting January 20th (a significant date) for the Xodus?
3. I thought for a while that the best alternative would be Threads. But Meta’s deliberate downgrading of political content and suspension of journalists on Threads rules it out as a prime platform for people like me. .theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1. Who really won the US election? The fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries. We scarcely heard about them during the election campaign, which is just how they like it. Almost everything we *did* hear about was a distraction from the real agenda. 🧵
2. Trump’s campaign was an economic war against the interests of almost everyone on Earth, on behalf of the planet’s most powerful and destructive industries. But it was dressed up, as always, as a culture war: a trick that has been used to great effect for more than a century.
3. It’s not as if Biden/Harris were seriously curtailing polluting industries, especially oil and gas. It’s shocking how little Harris even mentioned the existential threat to humanity that climate breakdown presents. But now? It’s a free-for-all.
1. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of staying on this platform.
Pro: We were here long before Musk took it over. We built this.
Con: He has used our creation to help elect a far-right autocrat, and build his own grim political career.
🧵
2. Pro: We should never cede any space, real or virtual, to the far right. Fascist trolls are trying to drive us out. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Con: Our presence could be used to legitimise a far-right hellsite.
3. Pro: It remains, amid the viciousness, a good place to share information, ideas and opinions.
Con: It is also an abysmal, dispiriting place to inhabit, the humour, lightness and kindness crushed by bots and trolls.
1. My column on what happened, what comes next, and just how easy our fake democracies are to overthrow. + short thread on where our remaining hopes lie. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. People seek to destroy what they feel excluded from. Centralised “democracies” exclude all but a rarefied circle from genuine power. Centralised democracy is a contradiction in terms.
3. Disempowered people tend to be profoundly unimpressed by “rational arguments” for this faction or for that one: they have an entirely reasonable desire – however unreasonable its expression may be – to kick the system over.