How Volodymyr Ischenko Strengthens Russia’s Negotiating Position

We publish here an important critique by leading Ukrainian democratic socialist Vitaliy Dudin of the ideas of the émigré sociologist Volodymyr Ischenko.  Many years ago Ischenko was a figure on the new left in Ukraine, since at least 2014, he has engaged in propagating narratives used by sections of the left hostile to Ukraine and actively undermining support for the resistance to Russian imperialism.

3 Points on how Volodymyr Ischenko strengthens Russia’s negotiating position

I had the dubious pleasure of listening to a speech by a person whose professional and public activities have almost entirely been focused on discrediting Ukraine. Yes, I am talking about Volodymyr Ishchenko.

It so happened that Volodia, once a Ukrainian sociologist, got offended at Ukraine and began to repeat Putin’s myths about a failed state that cannot cope with itself. At the height of the conflict between despotic Russia and freedom-loving Ukraine, he made a very strange choice. At the same time, unfortunately, he is considered a representative of the Ukrainian left by a significant part of the Western academic community, even though he has only a nominal connection to Ukraine, having left the country long ago. What is more, his leftism is increasingly being replaced by Trump-style geopolitical realism. Fearfulness and a thirst for glory have led him to take a position of hyping up the tragedy of my people.

He puts forward rather weak arguments, which nevertheless deserve attention.

1. Analysis of the war through the prism of the balance of military power

He likes to repeat the argument that Ukraine is weaker than Russia, although this has been clear from the very beginning. You don’t have to be a genius like Ishchenko to see that! But instead of promoting the idea of restructuring Ukraine’s economy in order to meet defence needs, he favours the idea of our defeat. Why? Because the Russians have more troops, they are better motivated and more technologically advanced. According to this logic, the fact that  Russians are stronger, in some ways, makes them   right. In characterising the war, he ignores its moral and political significance: the aggressive nature of Russia’s actions, the killings of civilians, and the persecutions in the occupied territories.

2. The global threat of Russian imperialism is ignored

All the horrors happening to Ukraine are presented as its own internal business, which justifies leaving Ukraine alone. This is typical victim blaming. Ishchenko does not talk about the international community’s duty to intervene and stop fascist Russia and restore the international legal order. He places the responsibility on Ukraine, denying the obligation of the international community to provide support to victims of aggression.

However, in reality, Ukraine’s failures are manifestations of the weakness of Western countries, particularly European ones, which are unable to provide Ukraine with sufficient support at a critical moment.

3. Ukraine deserves to lose because it is allegedly undemocratic

Vova’s so-called class analysis is limited to the fact that all post-Soviet countries are classified as oligarchic-clan regimes with minor differences between each other. In the eyes of Volodymyr Ishchenko, Ukraine is not a democracy (!) because it relies on forceful mobilisation and centralisation of power. According to him, successful national liberation wars were fought by democracies, and Ukraine is not one, therefore the people do not want to defend the state. He fails to understand that success can depend on many factors (yes, sometimes democracies lose, like France in World War II), and that the curtailment of democratic freedoms can be forced.

This argument about Ukraine’s undemocratic nature, put forward by the offended sociologist, is strangely combined with the assertion that during the war, Russia has consolidated, while Ukraine has been engulfed in political strife. As we know, open contradictions are a sign of democracy. Autocracies, on the other hand, mask internal dissent until the very last moment, and criticism of the authorities can put you in prison. The argument about greater political support for Putin’s regime because there are more volunteers there is from the same opera. In reality, this is achieved through a combination of propaganda, coercion and material incentives at the expense of oil and gas rubles, rather than the efficiency of developed Putinism.

I do not think that Volodymyr Ishchenko poses a threat to Ukraine, as his ideas can only influence people with a very infantile understanding of leftism. Those whose lullabies allow them to remain in a liturgical slumber, ignoring the threat of Russian imperialism and the need to fight it.

But his manipulations could serve to weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position in light of Dmitriev-Vitkov’s blackmail, as well as become a source of despair for people who would like to fight for a better world without imperialist oppression. In a precarious balance, Ishchenko’s arguments could morally justify leaving Ukraine without weapons for self-defence.

I call on everyone to engage in discussions against such imposture so that the voice of the Ukrainian people is truly heard!

We must defend Ukraine, particularly because with the proper international solidarity, it can change for the better!

Vitalii Dudin, Social Movement NGO (Ukraine)

Source: Facebook