Attacking Bernie Sanders about American imperialism and Putin is missing the point

Read a transcript of Putin’s most recent speech and the reality of the situation is made pretty clear

Bernie Sanders (AP)

Senator Bernie Sanders put out a statement yesterday afternoon condemning Vladimir Putin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine as an “indefensible violation of international law”. He urged the international community to unite and impose sanctions against Putin and his oligarch allies; he also urged them to make preparations to welcome refugees who may become displaced by the conflict. Hardly the most bellicose response to an international crisis. Many of his left-wing followers, however, acted as if he had just called for a missile strike on the Kremlin followed by an American invasion of Russia.

“This is what ultimately happens when you throw away your principles and bow down to a corporatist warmongering party,” one former Sanders supporter said. Others accused him of being beholden to the military-industrial complex, while hundreds of others echoed the refrain that the Senate’s most famous dove was betraying them with his unquenchable bloodlust for war.

It’s not hyperbole to say that Europe is in crisis after Russian forces rolled into separatist-controlled territories of eastern Ukraine, and the responsible party is obviously Russia. You don’t have to be a blindly patriotic, warmongering America to acknowledge that. Going so far as to think that Russia invading Ukraine is a bad thing is likewise not an inherent sign of chauvinistic nationalism. That’s not to say there aren’t some blindly patriotic, warmongering Americans out there, and it’s not to erase America’s own history of imperialism either — but it really shouldn’t be that difficult to see Russia as the “bad guy” in this current crisis.

Those who seem to have the hardest trouble condemning Russia’s actions have a myriad of reactions to the news, but most of them relate to American foreign policy and militarism, or the validity of Putin’s concerns about NATO and the threat it poses to Russia. All of these can be valid criticism and observation. Yes, America has a long history of supporting corrupt, authoritarian regimes with terrible human rights records and intervening militarily in other countries in violation of international law. So sure, there’s hypocrisy to the idea that the United States is some angelic force condemning the evil actions of others. But the thing is: nobody is making that argument.

In Bernie Sanders’ statement, he didn’t say America was a wonderful, benevolent force for good in the world. He simply condemned Russia’s actions. As to the argument that the eastward expansion of NATO, and a future Ukrainian membership in the organization, posed a threat to Russia, that’s certainly a valid discussion to be had. Though it should be noted that in a transcript of Putin’s speech on Monday justifying his decision to send troops into Ukraine, that he spent comparatively little time talking about NATO expansion, and much of it undermining the legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty.

He justified his decision by saying that Ukraine was an invention by Lenin in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and that it was wrong of the Soviet Union to grant its nationalities the right to secede. He spoke of the economic mismanagement of Ukraine ever since it toppled its pro-Russian leader in the 2014 Euromaidan revolution, and how the country was run by corrupt oligarchs who “embezzled the legacy inherited not only from the Soviet era, but also from the Russian empire.”

These are all the words of a man who made it clear this week that he does not view his neighbor as a sovereign, legitimate nation. But verbal attacks on a country’s legitimacy are much harder to defend than a criticism of NATO expansion. And, again, eastward expansion of NATO is a valid topic of discussion. But Putin has made it abundantly clear he sees his neighbor as a failed state with no claim to legitimacy torn from its natural home within the Russian empire, and that doesn’t exactly square with the “it’s because of NATO and western aggression” argument.

It’s not a surprise there’s a large number of people who react to criticism of Russia with invocations of America’s own sins and hypocrisies. The anti-anti-Russian attitude is reflective of larger currents in the American ego. So many people are motivated less by what they want, and more by wanting their opponents not to get what they want. And self-righteous Americans tut-tutting a Russian invasion of Ukraine is exactly what so many people do not want, regardless of what else is happening on the ground.

But you’re not defending America’s invasions of Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada or anywhere else by condemning Russia’s. It’s possible to hold two ideas in your head at the same time.