In today's #vatniksoup I'll introduce a French lawyer and politician, Marine Le Pen. She's best-known for her attempts at becoming the president of France and for her connections to the European far-right movement and to Vladimir Putin.
1/17
Le Pen's political career started as early as 1986, when she joined the National Front (later the National Rally, RN) party, a party found by his father Jean-Marie Le Pen. After becoming the party's leader in 2011, she started a "de-demonization campaign" to clean the...
2/17
...party's image of being anti-globalist, racist and anti-Semitic. The re-branded party was part of the European "far-right" bloc, led by Le Pen, Italian Matteo Salvini, and Dutch Geert Wilders.
3/17
Even though Le Pen has softened the party's views on same-sex marriage, abortion and the death sentence, it still supports strong stance on anti-immigration, nationalism and protectionism.
4/17
This resonates strongly with former president Trump's politics, and Trump actually endorsed Le Pen during her presidential campaign and vice versa. During the 2016 US election, Le Pen said that "For France, anything is better than Hillary Clinton".
5/17
In 2010 Le Pen compared the public Muslim prayers with the Nazi occupation of France during WW2, calling it an "occupation". Her statement was criticized by various political figures and human rights organizations, ...
6/17
..but as was tradition at the time,this only increased her popularity among the common folk. Before the 2017 presidential election, RN had difficulties in finding funding for Le Pen's presidential campaign in France - many French banks refused to provide the party any credit.7/17
Instead in 2014, the party took a 9 million EUR loan from Czech-Russian bank, despite the EU sanctions placed on Russia after the illegal annexation of Crimea. Later in 2016 they applied for another Russian loan of 27 million EUR, but they were refused.
8/17
Now the 2014 loan thing is a BIG mess and way too complicated to describe in a Twitter thread, but I suggest reading this fantastic WaPo article by Paul Sonne (@PaulSonne) from: washingtonpost.com/world/national…
9/17
In 2017 Le Pen met with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and according to an aide of RN, Putin wished her "good luck" for the upcoming election. During the same year, she stated that the concerns that Putin was a threat to Europe were a "big scam".
10/17
In a 2017 interview she also claimed that if elected, she'd attempt to swiftly lift EU sanctions imposed on Russia over the annexation of Crimea. "It's now the world of Putin, the world of Donald Trump", she continued.
11/17
Naturally she went on and accused the US and NATO for threatening Russia by arming the countries along their borders. Then she continued with a Mearsheimer classic: "Ukraine is part of Russia's sphere of influence, it's a fact".
After the Russian interference in the 2016...12/17
... US election, she denied any wrongdoing by Russia, saying that "it hasn't led any campaigns against European counties, or against the US". In the same interview she claimed that Russia's intervention in Syria had been good thing and improved overall global security.
13/17
Le Pen was part of the big group who still in early Feb 2022, believed that Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine. After it happened, she condemned the full-scale invasion harshly, saying that the attack is "a clear violation of international law and absolutely indefensible".
14/17
She also said that the allegations about her being close to Putin are "unfair". Finally, she suggested that "the Vladimir Putin of five years ago is not exactly that of today", which is - pardon my French - a fucking lie.
15/17
Putin's been the same since he rose to power in 1999. He bombed his own people to start the 2nd Chechen War, invaded Georgia, bombed Syrian civilians and hospitals and has been invading and conducting genocide in Ukraine since 2014.
16/17
In addition, he's been trying to assassinate people with nerve agents and radioactive substances around Europe, sometimes successfully. So Le Pen was either gullible, uninformed or had an agenda to keep supporting Putin, and I don't know which of these options is the worst.
17/17
In this 5th Debunk of the Day, we’ll discuss something that sounds great in theory, but was completely turned upside-down by the tankie kind of vatnik: anti-imperialism. More consistent anti-imperialists call this the “anti-imperialism of idiots”. 1/5
“Anti-imperialism” was popularized by Lenin, who saw imperialism as the ultimate stage of capitalism. Ironically, the largest empire is now… Putin’s Russia, proud heir to both Lenin’s Soviet Union and to the Tsarist Empire. 2/5
Indeed, Russia is an empire that is still ruled by a de facto all-powerful Tsar, that still proudly flies its imperial flag, that still dreams of expanding its already huge territory through brutal conquest and colonization. 3/5
In this 4th Debunk of the Day, we’ll refute an absolute classic of vatnik BS, the crown jewel of peak dishonesty: whataboutism.
Now, not everything that looks like whataboutism is wrong. Seeking consistency or comparing actions or responses is normal. 1/5
But when someone pulls some completely unrelated event, that happened to completely different people, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you know what you’re dealing with: a crass denial of the problem at hand, a bad-faith attempt to derail the topic. 2/5
Logic or chronology plays no role here, nor your opinion on these other topics. You could be the staunchest critic or supporter of these other actions thrown into the discussion, it doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant whether these other things are true or not, or bad or not. 3/5
In this 3rd Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “ending” the war by surrendering or ceding territory.
Nearing four years of the 2-day “special military operation”, Russia is desperate to obtain through other means what they failed to conquer on the battlefield. 1/5
An endless army of vatniks therefore tries to demoralize both Ukrainians and supporters.
They sound noble: “anti-war” or concerned about the fate of Ukraine’s civilians, soldiers and cities. They claim that if we just stop fighting or helping, this horror would magically end. 2/5
What they never mention is… WHO started the war, WHO murders Ukrainians, WHO destroys Ukrainian cities: the same monsters they suggest Ukrainians be at the mercy of. Surrendering wouldn’t end the atrocities of the occupation, it would enable them. Surrendering wouldn’t even…3/5
In today’s Debunk of the Day (2), we’ll look at… nuclear blackmail. Vatniks love using Russia’s nuclear threats as a reason for surrendering or for not lifting a finger to help Ukraine: “see, they have nukes, we have to give them whatever they want”.
The argument is absurd: 1/5
Nuclear deterrence has been a reality for decades. Both the US and Russia have lost wars without resorting to nukes. We are not submitting to the whims of Pakistan or North Korea either. For vatniks, it’s just an insidious way of siding with Putin. 2/5
We can’t just give in to the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, to the threats their officials and propagandists make five times a day to scare us into letting them have something they know perfectly well is not theirs, with no limit to their appetite. 3/5 vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-thr…
In today’s Vatnik Soup, we introduce a Ukrainian “scholar” and social media activist, Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta). She’s best known for spreading anti-Ukraine and pro-Kremlin narratives online, along with a habit of spotting neo-Nazis everywhere in Ukraine.
1/20
Marta hails from Ukraine, where she studied history at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. She received her PhD in history in 2010. Her academic work focused on gender-based violence and wartime atrocities, including publications on sexual crimes in occupied Ukraine.
2/20
She is currently working as a visiting Assistant Professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies at Clark University in the US. According to the center’s website, Marta teaches courses on antisemitism, racism, and gender-based violence in armed conflicts.
In today’s (first) Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “realistic expectations”.
Russia has the GDP of Italy. NATO — which Russia claims to be fighting — has 20 times their GDP, and a much stronger and more modern military. 1/5
Russia’s full scale invasion was supposed to take 2 days, but we’re nearing 4 years. They’ve lost a million men. Their economy is in shambles.
And yet we're letting them set their red lines instead of massive sanctions, strong support for Ukraine, and an immediate sky shield. 2/5
Russia thought their war was “realistic” because we’d let them get away with it. It wouldn’t be “realistic” to invade a European nation and redraw borders by force if the West had a strong and united response.
What’s “realistic” is what public opinion tolerates and accepts. 3/5