Zizek: What does it mean to defend Europe?

What does it mean to defend Europe?

Slavoj Žižek/Text

Wang Liqiu / Translator

Slavoj Zizek, “What does defending Europe mean?”, Qanrara , 14.03, 2022, https://en.qantara.de/node/46887 . Translations are for academic exchange only.

Slavoj Žižek, Slovenian Marxist philosopher and cultural critic, one of the most prominent thinkers of our time, published his first English book, The Sublime Object of Ideology, in 1989. " was recognized internationally. Known as the "Elvis of Cultural Theory".

Wang Liqiu, from Maitreya, Yunnan, holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Politics from the School of International Relations, Peking University, and is a lecturer in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Engineering University.

Immediately after Russia attacked Ukraine, the Slovenian government stated that it was ready to accept thousands of Ukrainian refugees. As a Slovenian citizen, I am not only proud but also ashamed.

Russia's war against Ukraine represented a turning point in history. In recent weeks, a diverse group of commentators (including Helen Thompson of Cambridge, Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard, and Corey Schek of the American Enterprise Institute) have spoken out about this very question—the global balance of power. , national and regional economies, energy markets, the global financial and monetary system, nuclear proliferation and other key issues, what does this war mean? - Exclusive analysis and forecasts of .

After all, six months ago, when Afghanistan fell to the Taliban audience, the same Slovenian government refused to accept Afghan refugees, saying they should stay and fight in their own country. And a few months ago, when thousands of refugees, mostly Iraqi Kurds, tried to enter Poland from Belarus, the Slovenian government, which claimed that Europe was under attack, also provided military assistance for Poland's shameful deportation of refugees.

Does Europe have to guard against non-Europe?

There are two types of refugees in Europe. On February 25, a tweet from the Slovenian government clarified the difference: "Refugees from Ukraine come from an environment that is culturally, religiously and historically very different from the homeland of refugees from Afghanistan." After the outcry, the Slovenian government quickly deleted the tweet, but it has already told the nasty truth: Europe must guard against non-Europe.

This way of thinking is disastrous in the ongoing global struggle for geopolitical influence. Our media and elites frame the struggle as a conflict between the "free" regions of the West and the "continental" regions of Russia, ignoring the larger groups of countries in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, which are closely watch us.

Even China does not intend to fully support Russia, although it has its own plans. In a message to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un a day after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Chinese leader expressed willingness to develop friendly and cooperative relations between China and North Korea under "new circumstances." Some people worry that China will take advantage of the "new situation" to "liberate" the other side.

more than rhetorical radicalization

What should worry us these days is that the radicalization we are seeing is not just rhetorical, nowhere more so than in Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many on the liberal left, who believe both sides know they can't fight an all-out war, believe that Putin was bluffing when he assembled troops on the Ukrainian border.

Even when Putin said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government was "a bunch of junkies and neo-Nazis", most still expected that Russia would only occupy two already independent Kremlin-backed Russian separatist-controlled The "Republic", which at most devoured the entire Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine.

Now, some self-proclaimed leftists are blaming the West for the fact that US President Joe Biden saw Putin's intentions early in the morning.

Their argument is well known: NATO is slowly encircling Russia, fomenting color revolutions in its peripheries, and a legitimate fear of Russia, a country that has been attacked by the West for the past century.

Of course, this argument is also true. But holding on to that alone is like justifying Hitler by accusing the Treaty of Versailles of injustice. Worse yet, such an argument actually acknowledges the fact that great powers have the right to divide spheres of influence, and for global stability, all others must obey.

Putin's assumption is that international relations are great power competition. As a result, he has repeatedly stated that he has no choice but to interfere militarily in Ukraine.

Is that so? Is it really a problem with Ukrainian fascism? Putin's Russia is more of the crux of the matter. Putin's ideological mentor is Ivan Ilyin. Putin republished Ilyin's works and distributed them to state officials and recruits.

After being expelled from the Soviet Union in the early 1920s, Ilyin was promoting a Russian version of fascism: the state was an organic community under the leadership of the king, in which freedom was knowing one's place.

The point of voting for Ilyin (and Putin) is to express collective support for the leader, not to give him legitimacy or elect him to power.

Russia's unique "truth"

Putin's royal philosopher, Alexander Dugin, followed Ilyin's footsteps, adding a postmodern twist to historicist relativism:

"Postmodernity shows that all so-called truth is just a matter of believing. So, we believe what we do, we believe what we say. And that's the only way to define truth. So, we have our special Russian truth, you guys It needs to be accepted. If the US doesn't want to go to war, then you should realize that the US is no longer the only one. On Syria and Ukraine, Russia said, 'No, you're not the head anymore'. The question is who will rule the world . . It's really all about war."

But what about the people of Syria and Ukraine? Can they choose their own truth too, or are they only worthy of being a battleground for great powers vying for world domination?

Every "way of life" has its own ideas of truth that endear Putin to right-wing populists like Mr. Chuan. Trump praised Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "genius". The feeling is mutual, too: as Putin talks about the "denazification" of Ukraine, we should keep in mind his views on France's Marine Le Pen's National League, Italy's Matteo Salvini and other real neo-fascists support of the movement.

"Russian truth" is just a myth that is convenient to justify Putin's imperial vision; the best way for Europe to fight back is to build bridges between developing and emerging nations. Many of these countries complained about Western colonization and exploitation, and their grievances were legitimate. "Defending Europe" is not enough. The real task is to convince other countries that the West can offer a better choice than what Russia and China can offer. And the only way to do that is to change ourselves by ruthlessly uprooting neocolonialism (even if it packages itself as humanitarian aid).

Are we ready to prove that while we are defending Europe, we are also fighting for freedom around the world? Our refusal to treat refugees as equals, and this shameful refusal, sends the opposite signal to the world.