Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media
The Western-based anti-imperialist Left are some of the strongest apologists for Russian revanchism and Chinese expansion today. These self-styled bleeding hearts condemn all US-led interventions around the globe (and rightly so), yet when contrasted with their punditry and rhetoric surrounding Russia and China, they come out sounding like neoconservative hawks with an Eastern exceptionalist bent.
Many of these people are playing the familiar ‘lesser evil’ gamble, believing that Russia and China – although crony capitalist dictatorships who viciously kill and imprison political opponents, dissidents and critics internally – right now exude a more measured foreign policy than their Western counterparts.
Similar thinking is employed to argue in favor of a Trump presidency, since the Republican candidate has pledged an “America First” non-interventionist foreign policy. Additionally, Trump has expressed fealty to Putin, the anti-imperialist Left’s darling statesman whose crimes and abuses – including a conspiracy to kill his own citizens in apartments in 1999, and then murdering lawmakers and journalists who sought to expose the state’s hand behind the attacks – are overlooked or whitewashed.
The majority of these Leftists are opportunistic attention-seekers looking for their 15 minutes of fame, duly provided to them by outlets like RT. Shilling for Third World dictatorships is the cause célèbre for Leftist charlatans, who traipse around the globe looking for conflict zones (not unlike the infamous Bernard Henry Levi) where they can insert themselves as propagandists for one side (usually the regime, but sometimes the rebels if the regime is “Western-backed,” like in Ukraine). Today a motley crew of Leftists and neo-Stalinists – with a strangely high volume of middle-aged women – are flocking to Syria to ingratiate themselves with the ruling authorities headed by Bashar al-Assad, the rockstar Middle Eastern strongman revered by the Leftist rabble.
If the Western powers decided to switch their allegiance from support for rebels to support for Assad in Syria, would these Leftist dreamers promptly alter their orientation as well? In truth, Western powers have been backing both sides of the raging conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, which has been locked in an epic struggle against ISIS forces across Iraq for two years, is the same client regime installed by the US after toppling Saddam Hussein, and continues to be fully backed by the White House. Most of the Iraqi regime’s weapons and training come from the US, recently receiving a US aid package of military equipment worth $1.6 billion. Likewise, the militarized Kurdish factions fighting ISIS on the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields have been receiving substantial support from Western powers, including on-the-ground help from the special forces of countries like Canada.
Undeniably, anti-Assad rebels have been covertly and overtly supported by Washington, London, Paris and Tel Aviv for years, a policy that looks strikingly like a ‘divide and conquer’ gambit where no matter who wins, the Western coalition has leverage over the victors. So, if these Leftists were consistent with their one-dimensional anti-US outlook, they would find themselves on the side of ISIS in Iraq which is fighting an US-backed regime, but against ISIS in Syria which is warring with a Russian-backed regime. Obviously, it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to find their way out of such a confusing and convoluted geopolitical maze, and the Leftist rabble are having a hard time staying consistent.
The most common sense position, which the Leftist rabble is unable to grasp, is one of non-intervention across the board, condemning interventions from both ends of any major conflict. But that doesn’t play well with the “team choosing” partisan game these hobbyists are addicted to.
Challenging or disputing the prevailing orthodoxies of the cultist Left – who engage in base hero worship of political leaders instead of reasoned analysis – will inevitably induce hysterical charges of “shill for the West,” even if you’re counted among the most ardent critics of US foreign policy. The shill accusation is far more applicable to them, whose criticism of Russia, China and their favorite strong-men in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, is virtually nil. Geopolitics is clearly far more complicated, messy and intricate than these Leftist dreamers would have us believe.