Jello Biafra's Take on Vladimir Putin

Photo courtesy of Montecruz Foto's Flickr page - Jello Biafra @ SO36: https://www.flickr.com/photos/libertinus/33015488935/in/photolist-Sit1BR-8eot65-8SF2Ca-8SFaDT-8SJ4xb-8SJ5UA-8SF7W8-8SF4cP-8SF4Ja-8SJ5vm-8SF93z-8SF1Gz-8SF8yg-8SJ7Ju-8SJefw-8SF6Xn-8SJ8iJ-8SEYqe-8SJ6Ph-sFNZe-nvcSNf-a9MfqW-sFP4c-x1Kdrx-JGQWi-sFP1Q-sFP2U-sFPbq-sFP6j-8iBzqZ-sFNYb-sFP7y-9u872d-x1CHip-xViQpS-xXCpCX-q2m6zp-diJV13-a8N1zu-pZfCpf-a9SSN6-pJXLD1-q5PKtK-xEU5G5-8ekctz-5rVj35-5gcQp-xWDtfs-4Vm1Ad-9URFZs

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Jello Biafra is always a fascinating guy. Certainly, I cannot say that I always agree with him, and sometimes, he can be a little bit overly dramatic for me on some things. Yet, his point of view is something that I have continually turned to over the course of many years, since I was a young teenager, and possibly even a preteen, listening to his music (mostly with DK, but sometimes with side projects, particularly No Means No, LARD, and especially with DOA).

When something major in the world happens, usually I like to get his take on it, to see what he has to say. This was the case with the Iraq war and the so-called "Global War on Terror," the political rise of Donald Trump, as well as the coronavirus pandemic. 

Naturally, when the Russian invasion of Ukraine began - an event that has now dominated world headlines for three weeks - I was intrigued to hear his take on it. I wanted to know, specifically, what he had to say about it. 

Not surprisingly, his viewpoint was informed with a certain context that I have seen among some individuals, but which largely remains unavailable if you only pay attention to the mainstream media. Specifically, what Jello Biafra argues here is that we in the West created Putin, which is actually a position that I have believed and been arguing myself, including here on this blog. 

In short, Biafra argues that we created Putin. This is a position that I not only agree with, but have been arguing myself, ever since Putin began to amass Russian military forces along Ukraine. Yes, we certainly helped to create him, and it sometimes feels to me that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was, in fact, something that Western leaders (perhaps particularly, but not necessarily exclusively, American) wanted. No, they will never admit to it, and will only publicly give platitudes about how terrible the war is, and how horrendous the human toll is, and how much of a monster Putin is.

Such disingenuous arguments and talking points basically make sure that these people never make it onto the radar with most people. But anytime that there is a major event in the world that is not caused by some kind of natural disaster beyond human control, it is probably necessary to look at who is profiting the most from it to understand how it happened, and why it is unfolding in precisely the way that it is or has.

Case in point, the current war in Ukraine. Perhaps more specifically, the entire political rise and career of Putin. Remember, Putin took power literally at what could be argued was the symbolic - if not quite the literal - turn of the century. He took office for the first time on December 31, 1999. And other than a short interruption of his official term when Dmitry Medvedev officially became Russia's head of state, Putin has ruled Russia since then. Almost everyone believes that Putin was actually in charge behind the scenes during those Medvedev years as well, since they are political allies. This seemed to be confirmed when Medvedev did not seek another term, and Putin stepped right back into office as soon as he was eligible.

That means that Putin has been in power for well over 20 years. Yes, there are leaders presently who have been in power for longer than that. Mostly, those are dictators or official royalty and, for the most part, these are in smaller, often poorer, nations. But Russia is one of the world's major powers. To think that Putin has been in charge, both officially and unofficially, since the last day of 1999 is rather mind-boggling. Many believe that this Ukrainian invasion was a miscalculation by Putin, and that it may in fact bring about his downfall. Maybe. But given how crafty and, again, calculating he has always been, I would not bet the ranch on it. 

Most people in the West viewed Putin with skepticism at first. Unlike Gorbachev, the leaders of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991, and the Yeltsin, who was in charge from 1991 until 1999, when Putin took over, Putin was not seen as particularly friendly to Western interests. He had been a head guy in the KGB. He also believed - and still sure seems to believe - that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the single worst event in the 20th century. If this invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia has made anything crystal clear, it is that Putin is doing his best to restore his country - now officially Russia, instead of the Soviet Union - to superpower status. There were certainly other strategic interests involved behind his invasion of Ukraine, but it seems clear enough that this was truly the driving force behind his invasion. He clearly seemed to feel that this would go a long way towards allowing Russia to reclaim that superpower status in the eyes of the world. In fact, it seems to have had the opposite effect, as the difficulties that the Russian military have faced in Ukraine seem to underscore a certain weakness, rather than displaying Russia's military might, as Putin surely was hoping and expecting.

However, put aside how the Russian war effort is actually going. Putin clearly seemed to expect that his campaign in Ukraine was going to be a cakewalk. It has not, but that is beside the point. Putin expected to take over, and to have his say, and have his way, in Ukraine. Perhaps he meant to dismantle it, and to outright annex certain parts of it, particularly the Donbas (like he outright annexed Crimea in 2014) and the southeastern parts of Ukraine along the Sea of Azov that would provide Russia with a land bridge to the Crimean peninsula. I figured that he would allow the rest of Ukraine some nominal, largely symbolic, status as an official country, one aligned very closely to Putin's Russia, more or less in the model of present day Belarus. Also, for the most part, I think that Putin would have made sure that Ukraine's wealth of resources - it's status as a breadbasket to Europe, as well as iron and gas and uranium - would benefit Russia. Again, all of this with the express intent of elevating Russia back to superpower status. 

Most people in the West would agree with this. The general consensus is that Putin is trying to recreate the lost superpower that his nation enjoyed, and not so long ago. The fact that his approval ratings seemed to shoot up anytime that he actively asserts Russia into such conflicts that might help elevate it's power and worldwide status indicates that many, many Russians - far too many to simply dismiss - are with him in these efforts, and would like for him to succeed. Even Gorbachev, a man who sure seemed to be a champion for peace and greater freedom in the country, was supportive of Putin's making sure that Crimea was returned to Russia.

Somehow, the world did not seem to react as strongly with Russia's other foreign interventions during Putin's reign. Nobody seemed particularly outraged when Russia was at war in Chechnya. Likewise, Russia's war with Georgia did not spark anything resembling the kind of outcry that the current invasion of Ukraine has. Even Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, and especially in annexing Crimea, in 2014 did not have this kind of global outrage. Nor did Russian military intervention in Syria raise particularly many eyebrows. It could be argued that all of these former actions were other instances of Putin attempting to reassert Russia's privileged status as a global superpower, or at least inching it closer to such. But nobody seemed to react too strongly to it. At least not then.

Now, however, Russia's blatant invasion, this war of aggression in Ukraine, has suddenly triggered worldwide outrage and near universal condemnation. Is it just a case of this being the straw that broke the camel's back? Why didn't the world react so strongly to condemn Russian aggression in Chechnya, or Georgia, or even eastern Ukraine eight years ago? What's so different this time around?

Well, it sure feels like the difference has a lot to do with geography and political influence. Whatever the motivations for Russia's political and military influence in other places before, this one clearly seems to be different. And it hardly takes someone with a very sharp eye to see that the difference is that this conflict is closer to the West, both geographically and politically. Chechnya is not close to any Western nations. Neither is Georgia. Neither is Syria. And Crimea was or is in southeastern Ukraine, so it was on the opposite side of Ukraine's western regions. But this invasion threatened that Russia might take over a country that bordered numerous nations that are now considered part of "the West," meaning member nations of both the European Union and NATO. These include Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and especially Poland. All of these countries used to be much closer to Russia, politically. In the days when the Soviet Union was a global superpower, these countries were aligned with the USSR. They were on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain that then split Europe in half, and they also were officially a part of the Warsaw Pact.

Clearly, those countries have moved on. Almost as soon as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and mostly peaceful revolutions swept across eastern Europe (with the notable exception of Romania), these former Eastern Bloc nations worked to remove the shackles of communism, and to distance themselves from the influence of the Soviet Union and, when that empire dissolved, to continue to maintain as much distance as possible from it’s successor, Russia. For the most part, they succeeded. Despite promises to the contrary at the time that no moves would be made to try and get these countries to join traditionally western alliances like the European Union and especially NATO, a military alliance, many of them eventually did just that. It began with East Germany immediately after it dissolved and became part of what had been West Germany, to form the newly unified Germany, clearly a western nation. But in time, numerous other countries joined both organizations, as well. These include Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Given the suspicion and seeming hostility that these former Soviet republicans and or allies to the USSR suddenly seemed to view Russia with, their joining NATO did not sit well with Putin. It seemed in the post-Cold War world that NATO viewed Russia with almost the same level of skepticism and distrust that it had formerly viewed the Soviet threat that it had initially been designed to keep in check. If anything, the skepticism and fear that these nations had toward Russia seemed almost to reenergize NATO, an organization which, shortly after the Cold War ended, had people questioning why it even still needed to exist.  

Putin clearly felt that the end of the Soviet Union  - which was one of two global superpowers in his day – was one of the most tragic events of the 20th century. And he felt that the United States not only had a hand to play in it, but that it also recruited former Soviet republics and allies to join against Russia in the post-Cold War world, and that it seemed almost to pound their chest in pride and relish in the chaos and humiliation that reigned in Russia following the dissolution of what had, not long before, been a once strong global power.

Putin has become the seemingly impregnable political voice and will of Russia. Russia got Putin, arguably, because of lingering resentment and mutual distrust of the West, and especially of the United States. What Jello Biafra is arguing here is that all of this not only could have been foreseen, but was downright predictable. If the focus had not been to help Russia, to embrace it as a partner, to see Russians as people worthy of joining the family of nations, things could have been different. Biafra suggests that the leaders after World War II had a better vision, with the Marshall Plan. Countries that we had fought bitterly against, and which were on their knees and in worst shape than Russia was after the Cold War, countries which had lost millions of people and had seen much of their country reduced to rubble, were nevertheless embraced by the West, especially the United States. Germany and Japan recreated themselves, and became peaceful nations in good standing. Russia might have been given the same opportunity.

We collectively decided otherwise. We were too busy celebrating how we "won" the Cold War to bother worrying about what might be simmering underneath the surface in Russia, as that country was brought to it's knees and saw chaos and lawlessness reign. When Putin brought a certain order, not to mention nostalgia for days when the country and the people had been more powerful and been taken seriously in the world, Russians embraced it. Putin, ever the skilled politician, grew more powerful. He kept pushing the envelope, testing how much he could get away with. 

Now, here we are. A ruthless, calculating man who wanted his country to once again be a major world power has committed to a war in a neighboring country, but it is not going as well as he hoped. It seems logical that he expected a quick and decisive victory, but that has eluded him to this point. Also, the rest of the world has rightly condemned him and the actions he has taken on behalf of his nation. Russia has faced serious sanctions, to the point where the ruble has been seriously weakened, as has the Russian economy. Putin himself is being sanctioned. Not that he will suffer or not know where his next meal is. And let's face it: all of those bold predictions that Putin will be held accountable are likely overblown, as well. Do you honestly believe that he will be taken somewhere to some international court, perhaps in The Hague, to face war crimes charges? 

However, Putin likely is growing more desperate. He kept steadfast so far, trying to mask any problems that the Russian military is facing in Ukraine. He also is shrugging off the impact of the increasingly severe economic sanctions being imposed on his country. The reality, however, is that none of this is going as he would like. And so he is trying to push the envelope again, and increasingly making innocent civilians as his targets. The Ukrainian conflict is getting bloodier, yet Putin cannot really withdraw without his status, and his aspirations of making his country into a superpower again, being seriously diminished in front of the entire world. So if anything, it seems likely that he is increasingly desperate, and will lash out even more at the poor Ukrainians. 

Meanwhile, the West is fixated with this conflict being played out. Everywhere you look, there are visible shows of support for Ukraine, which is understandable. However, this conflict was made possible not merely by Putin, but by the West - and especially the United States - trying to entice Ukraine to it's side. It seems clear to one and all that Putin felt forced to invade Ukraine because he could not stand the idea of a Ukrainian neighbor of Russia being a member of the EU and especially NATO. He found this threatening enough to launch a war, and the war is not going very well for him. The West is trying to rush to give Ukraine as much aid as humanly possible, but this also has the effect of extending the life of the war. In other words, Ukrainians will continue to suffer. Perhaps the war will escalate, as recent signs of attacks near L'viv would suggest. If that happens, if the suffering not only continues, but escalates, Putin and his misled supporters in Russia are the obvious choice for the most responsible party. But if we are being honest, maybe we should leave a little room for ourselves, here watching the horrors of this war from the comfort of our homes, on our television screens or our laptops or our cell phones. There are very serious historical and political arguments that seem to validate that viewpoint. And you can bet that Western governments and media, much like Russia and especially Putin himself, will continue to deny their own complicity in this horrific war almost making Ukrainians virtual pawns being moved by both sides in what sometimes seems almost just a high stakes game between two traditional political rivals.