Some on the left, defenders of the oppressed, are often at odds when it comes to supporting Ukraine in its resistance to the Russian invasion. This split stems either from an “anti-imperialist” stance against the US, or from symbolic, political or sponsorship ties to Russia. This article aims to analyze how Russia exploits these symbolic links using various strategic maneuvers such as substituting concepts and imposing derogatory labels.

Our recent investigation looked at Russia’s cooperation with Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, revealing a paradoxical pattern. Despite the party’s apparent fascination with Hitler and the Wehrmacht, the party became Russia’s closest ally under Putin, acting to prevent German arms from being sent to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression. Understanding the complexity of this alliance, I was able to consider the party’s statement of support for “denazification” while supporting anti-Ukrainian theses that refer to pro-Kremlin narratives. I have previously delved into the intricate details that explain the factors behind this paradox and explored the anti-Ukrainian narratives espoused by the said party that accurately reflect pro-Kremlin theses. Our focus now is on examining how hostile agitprop uses the tenets of leftist ideology to cleverly manipulate the anti-fascist consensus.

How was the anti-fascist consensus formed?

In 1942, the Allies in World War II united to oppose the Axis Powers, mainly led by Hitler’s Germany. This historic union became an example of the collective determination of nations to resist the threat of Nazism. At its center was the USSR, a key member that came to the fore after Operation Barbarossa destroyed the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This pact, a non-aggression pact with a secret annex that delineated spheres of influence in Europe from the East, was suddenly abrogated by the German invasion. An unexpected change in the Soviet Union put him at the head of the anti-Hitler coalition, turning the Eastern Front into a decisive battleground. The sacrifices and victories on this front contributed greatly to the eventual success of the coalition, which led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. Russian propaganda now supports the narrative that Russia, as the supposed successor state to the Soviet Union, played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II. Modern Russian propaganda use of the narrative of the historical contribution of the Soviet Union serves political purposes by portraying Russia as a fighter for peace and an important force against Nazism.

Russia is now using the anti-fascist consensus that has taken root in Western societies since 1945. Despite the rise of far-right sentiment in the US and EU countries at the beginning of the 21st century, there is still widespread condemnation and opposition to nationally-based political currents. Hitler’s socialism, Italian fascism and other far-right movements of the 1930s and 1940s are the culprits of the Second World War and mass crimes against humanity.

Externally, Moscow presents itself as a staunch defender of the Yalta anti-fascist consensus, which could be seen from the participation of Western leaders in the Moscow parade on May 9. However, in Realpolitik, Russia it willingly engages in political cooperation with internal neo-fascist movements, as evidenced by the participation of the extreme right in the wars in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Transnistria and Ukraine. Also, the closest allies and collaborators of the Russian government in the political struggle in the EU are right-wing or far-right populists, in particular the “National Front” of Marine Le Pen in France, “Alternative for Germany”, Silvio Berlusconi. in Italy and Viktor Orban in Hungary. Putin shows no desire to “denazify” the right as long as they are pro-Russian. At the same time, Putin’s regime turned into an ultra-conservative dictatorship with elements of neo-fascism.

“Nazi”, “fascist” and “abomination”: how agitprop manipulates epithets

Kremlin-sponsored Agiprop uses the cult of World War II victory to create a false narrative of ideological coherence in the fight against Nazism. Using the method of “placing shameful epithets”, propagandists attach the labels “fascist” and “Nazi” to both internal and external opponents of Putinism. Russian propaganda actively seeks out far-right elements in countries that resist the influence of the Kremlin, exaggerating their political influence to discredit Moscow’s opponents – especially in regions such as the eastern Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine. By framing Ukraine as a “Nazi junta” since 2014, agitprop seeks to delegitimize the post-Maidan government by drawing historical parallels with Nazi Germany to evoke negative associations. This narrative often contains historical revisionism, emphasizing Ukraine’s collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II. Russia equates Ukrainian national identity with fascism, viewing its aggression as a continuation of the struggle against Nazi Germany. At the same time, agitprop seeks to establish associations between the influence of the Ukrainian far-right and the actions of the government, fueling global concerns about extremism and questioning Ukraine’s reliability as a partner.

These “anti-fascist” accusations take on a grotesque and cynical look, given that Putinism has turned Russia into a fascist dictatorship that ironically opposes the very fascism it embraces.

Quasi “anti-fascism”: changing concepts

The Russian government cooperates with far-left Western political elites and groups, inspired by the common goal of opposing the historical center-left and center-right bloc that has dominated most Western countries, and tacitly disdaining US military influence and policy (so-called “American imperialism”). The mainstream movements in these countries are seen as perpetuating an unjust capitalist system that protects the international order that Russia seeks to challenge through its revisionism. Agitprop strategically uses the equation between Ukrainian “oligarchism”, NATO and Russian “imperialism”, presenting the latter as a less threatening force than other threats. Hostile propaganda is supported by the idea that Russian aggression stems from class conflict and criticizes the New Left for their inaction in preventing war. Ukrainian moderate leftists are portrayed as serving the interests of liberal left-wing Western civil society, rather than opposing capitalism, as they promote European integration.

This position of the left can partly be attributed to externalism – an approach that places emphasis in the interpretation of events and processes of world politics on factors external to the state. It does not take into account the internal motives of political action. It manifests itself through “anti-imperialist” positions against foreign military support or wars proxy are carried by great powers. Such an approach leads to denial of political actions of small states (as in the case of Ukraine). It also denies the domestic factors that drive the expansionist foreign policies of the great powers, and essentially wants to appease the aggressor rather than deter it. In other words, externalism ignores identity and social action in general, since the only subject of social action is the class, not the nation (although the war is specifically against Ukrainians as a nation, not the working class).

At the same time, said “anti-imperialism” tends to be one-dimensional, to oppose a perceived stronger US-dominated capitalist bloc, and to ignore key differences within class. In this context, Russia becomes a partial ally of the “anti-imperialists” because, despite its capitalist nature, it opposes the “chief capitalist” of the planet in an unconventional, non-systemic way. This perspective sees geopolitics as an arena of confrontation between US and NATO capitalism on the one hand and capitalist Russia on the other, occasionally linked to India, Brazil and China. According to this narrative, Ukraine must remain under Russian influence to avoid serving the interests of the United States or NATO. In this context, ordinary Ukrainians, even if they belong to the working class who support Ukraine’s accession to the EU, are presented as “servants of the fascists” who are manipulated by the US, NATO and their supposed puppet government in Kyiv, the “junta”. .

Unfortunately, some Western ultra-leftists continue to confuse the USSR with its planned socialist economy and modern Russia with its oligarchic capitalism. The Russian authorities exploit the myopia of these allies, periodically criticizing the neoliberal market economy that will harm the planet, even though it itself is de facto one of the most reactionary, predatory and irresponsible forms of the capitalist elite. The sensitivity surrounding the topic of the Ukrainian far-right among Western ultra-leftists generates a double reaction: a general desire to appease the aggressor and, conversely, the participation in the conflict of some Western anti-fascists on the side of Russia. Exaggerating the influence of the extreme right on the social and political landscape in Ukraine even led to the fact that a faction of the Ukrainian extreme left participated in Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine in roles such as soldiers, propagandists or spies.

Pocket “anti-fascism”: the release of pro-Russian trade

In the run-up to the full-scale invasion, Moscow tried to penetrate the “anti-fascist” sphere in Ukraine by creating a puppet organization that presented itself as anti-fascist. Within the framework of the opposition “Platform for Life”, a Russia-oriented political organization headed by Putin’s ally Viktor Medvedchuk, the paramilitary group “Patriots for Life” emerged. According to the SBU, this group is “sa specialized in committing crimes and provocative actions aimed at destabilizing the situation in the countryUnder the leadership of Ilya Kyva, the organization said “a war against all who profess the values ​​of NazismHowever, the activities of the “patriots” were mainly focused on physical training, participation in the drug trade, security activities (countering protests against the TV channel owned by Medvedchuk) and confrontation with the far-right. Although it claimed to have an anti-fascist stance, the organization’s “anti-fascism” had no real connection to actual left-wing organizations. If the group had an ideology, it was based on right-wing principles such as Russian nationalism, not in the principles of internationalism or anti-capitalism.

In addition to creating puppet organizations with no real ideological commitment, the Kremlin tried to secure the cooperation of genuine left-wing figures in order to win the support of the left-wing public. In particular, the key figure of this strategy was Volodymyr Chemerys, former People’s Deputy of Ukraine (1994-1998), former left-wing activist and director of the Republic Institute. Since 2018, he has been frequently invited to Medvedchuk’s media channels, seeking to become his “media lawyer” and defender after 2020. While such co-optation may have seemed ineffective or inconsequential prior to the full-scale invasion, events after 2022, including the police search of Chemeris’s apartment, provided the opportunity for a narrative that presented accusations of political persecution to the Western public. against “anti-fascist activists”. _ Read the rest of the article on Contributors.ro