Hate 2.0

Jim Dagg

Vladimir Putin said that he was launching his “special military operation” in order to deal with “neo-nazis” who persecuted a peaceable ethnic Russian minority. In his speech on the day of the invasion (February 24, 2022), he said “We will strive for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.” We will “stop this nightmare, this genocide of millions of people who rely only on Russia, only on us”. On the second day of Russia’s “special operation”, an ambulance brought a small boy to a children’s hospital in Kiev. His parents died in the shrapnel of exploding shells, as they drove through the city. The boy survived the attack but needed emergency surgery to stabilized him. Even so, he was not in good shape, showing little sign of brain activity. It’s not clear whether the boy survived.

Since coming to power as the chosen successor to an enfeebled Boris Yeltsin at the end of 1999, Vladimir Putin has succeeding in building a fascist state. This statement is supported by the two-element definition provided by British historian Roger Griffin: creation/exploitation of populist ultra-nationalism and promoting the idea of regeneration of a great nation that his been under threat. Putin’s favourite tactic is to accuse the West of disrespect and aggression against the Motherland, in order to build Russian fear and outrage. This plays on both elements of the definition.

Further, Putin claims that Ukraine is historically one with Russia – with roots as far back as the 9^th century. Harking back to medieval roots is a favourite tune of fascists and other right-wingers in Europe and beyond. Other former USSR states with significant Russian minorities (such as the Baltic states) are worried that, a Putin success in absorbing Ukraine might make them next. This pattern was exploited in the late 1930s by the Nazis who claimed to be saving persecuted ethnic Germans when they stole a chunk of Czechoslovakia.

So Putin is, in some ways, following in Hitler’s path. That said, there are fascists who are good at war, and fascists who are not. Hitler spent years building a military mindset in his people, establishing their belief in their duty to fight and fight well for the Fatherland. He built a formidable fighting machine. Putin, we are told, also spent a decade in reforming the Russian military. And yet, the Russian air force is absent from the skies of Ukraine. A 40-mile convoy of tanks and other military equipment was stalled for weeks on the road to Kiev, before turning back to Belarus in disgrace.

More recently, Ukraine regained thousands of square kilometers in a couple weeks. It doesn’t yet feel like the Soviets chasing the Nazis out of Ukraine, but it’s getting there. And just last week, someone – maybe using marine drones – blew up part of Putin’s favourite bridge (joining Crimea to Russia’s north Caucasus). In retaliation, Putin used 83 cruise missiles, worth an estimated $500M USD, in a single day, on non-military targets. Western military experts have, since July, pointed to evidence that Russian supplies of such missiles is limited. Does that sound like a wise use of resources by a leader focused on winning a “special military operation”? No, it sounds like a wounded leader trying to demonstrate strength to his people, in the most effective way he can manage.

Speaking of the home front, Putin and his defence minister announced plans on September 21 to mobilize reserve troops, numbering up to 300,000. This seems motivated by the unexpected loss of large numbers of troops in the conflict to this point. Polls quoted at this time showed a majority of Russians in favour of the “special operation”, but only a minority supporting mobilization. Demonstrations against the mobilization and the war broke out in Moscow and over 30 other cities in the following days. 1300 people were arrested and some apparently were issued draft notices. Assuming that the most-eager and best-trained soldiers were already fighting, what can be expected from the next wave of soldiers? Two videos circulating in Russia in October showed men in uniform who claimed to be a group of 500  recent draftees. “They complain of ‘animal-like’ conditions, of having to buy their own food and bulletproof vests.”

Ukraine has a demonstrated will to fight, and the support of a united West. As per CNN, Russia has “poor and inflexible leadership, sour troop morale, inadequate logistics and hardware beset by maintenance issues”. It won’t happen soon, but Russia will lose this war.

By Liam McCrorie

If I were to tell you 10 years ago that fascism would be on the rise again soon, I am sure you would not believe me, or at least have a hard time believing me. I would have a hard time believing that as well, 10 years ago I would have said that we are living in one of the most progressive times in history. People in marginalized groups were getting more rights and gaining better standings in society. But with all this progressiveness, came push back from the far-right. And by today this has manifested itself as fascist and far-right groups popping up all over the world. These groups that seem to be all about taking rights away from people seem to be gaining a lot of traction, but why?

Fascism, and fascist parties have always had their supporters, but not to this degree. Typically, far-right groups would only have small followings of mainly white men, but now we can see men and women of all nationalities supporting far-right movements. For example, the Latinos for Trump movement, a large group of Latinos who supported and voted for Trump, even though Trump had so many anti-immigration policies which affected many Latino people in a negative way, such as building a wall across the Mexican-U.S. border, and separating families at the border. Women are also supporters of these far-right movements, typically Christian women who want to block other people from access to rights, to be more in line with the Bible. Think of what happened with the Supreme Court back in June when they overturned Roe v. Wade.

By now far-right political parties are part of the norm and are seen everywhere, we can definitely say that there is a rise of fascism sweeping the world. Lately we have seen the Italians elect the first fascist leader since Benito Mussolini. Giorgia Meloni leads the Brothers of Italy party a far-right political party with neo-fascist roots. Although she denies the party is fascist, her policies and actions speak otherwise. The party is fervently against same-sex marriage and for LGBTQ couples to adopt children. They are anti abortion and hold up other Christian values they believe to be important. Meloni is also extremely anti-immigration, just like other right wing parties, and she even is a believer and spreader of the Great Replacement Theory, which many fascist parties rely on to attract a base of white nationals who hate immigrants.

Meloni is just one of many far-right leaders who are gaining a lot of popularity, and in her case becoming leader of her nation. There was Donald Trump a few years ago, who was extremely far-right and used populism to gain popularity with the voters, promising to ‘Make America Great Again’ by fixing the economy and getting rid of immigrants and ‘others’, who are a threat to society. And in Sweden the Sweden Democrats are one of the biggest parties, and they have Neo-Nazi roots, and have similar policies to Meloni and Trump, mainly to stop immigrants from coming to their country and ruining it for the white people who already live there. There are many other far-right populist leaders like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and even in Canada far-right groups are beginning to get some traction. The Peoples Party of Canada is a fairly new party, only founded in 2018 by Maxime Bernier, who is also their current leader. While not as extreme as some other parties, they are still looking to reduce immigration in Canada, as well as doing less to combat global warming, all in the name of a better economy.

The economy seems to be the biggest factor in why people seem to be attracted to the far-right, and if the economy is working good for them then they can look past the more extreme policies some of these parties want to implement. This is seen everywhere like the Latinos for Trump, who by all means should hate Trump, but instead will look past all his racist and anti-immigration rhetoric, because he is building a better economy which could help them as individuals, even if it is damaging to Latino communities as a whole. These far-right leaders are on the rise all over the world for a variety of reasons and are gaining more and more popularity by the day. Its hard to say what will happen in the coming years but the rise of Fascism is making the future look very worrying.

By Felix Nicol

The spread of populist movements in Europe in recent times has become an increasingly problematic issue for the European Union, especially when observing the democratic backsliding in Hungary. Recent news that the EU may look to suspend funds vis-a-vis Hungary as a result of the country’s illiberalism shows the commitment of the EU to ensuring the return of liberal, democratic values to Hungary. As a reply the Hungarian government has put forth two anti-corruption laws it intends to put in place. Though seemingly promising, a deeper analysis would suggest that these laws are insufficient in suppressing Orbán’s illiberal democracy. In fact, it should be doubted that the EU has any coercive power in returning liberal values to its illiberal member states.

Though the EU funding in question makes up 9% of the Hungarian GDP, it is clear that Orbán does not find himself particularly threatened. In fact, when looking at Hungary’s proposed anti-corruption laws, it needs to be understood that the democratic institutes of the country are often only democratic on the surface. In this regard, the effectiveness of the EU’s leverage of funding comes under question. Even if they were to have stronger requirements as recommended by some, it is unlikely that further institutional reform will change the situation of the country. For this reason, the EU likely needs to look for further leverage to truly get Orbán’s regime under control.

Yet what does the EU have left to leverage? When taking in the historical context, the options look even murkier. In discussions with potential members, the EU is known for using their “carrot and stick” methods, using membership as a key driver of political reform. Hungary is no stranger to this, as prior to its own accession to the EU, reform in the country was certainly driven by potential membership. It is also important to understand in this context that the EU already has a set of laws, the acquis communautaire, that potential states must adhere to in order to be truly accepted into the Union. Under this understanding, the implications of Hungary’s move towards an illiberal democracy underlines key flaws in the underlying democratic framework of the Union, which should look to protect and continue its own democratic values. That is to say, despite having respected all of the requirements the EU put in place for candidacy, Orbán’s populist movement was still able to move away from the liberal democratic institutions that were put in place. If the EU was unable to ensure Hungary remained democratic through its acquis communautaire, what tools does it have left?

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that with the rise of other populist movements, it may become increasingly difficult to even apply restrictions towards Hungary. While Poland has long held good relations with the country, the rise of more populist movements in the EU could suggest increased leverage in the EU for populists. With Italy’s Giorgia Maloni showing ties to Orbán, as well as Sweden’s radical right-wing party with neo-Nazi roots show that support on an EU level is present. With the growing support of populist movements, the abilities of the EU to effectively fight these movements is put into question even further. In this regard, with the questionable viability of the EU’s legislative abilities in preventing the rise of illiberalism, reconsideration is in order if it wishes to retain its liberal democratic ideals.

Despite the focus on Hungary for its particularly pronounced departure from the liberal norms of the EU, it should not be assumed that it is alone in its departure from these values. The previously mentioned Poland has aligned itself with Hungary precisely because of their similar values, providing each other with a partner in antagonizing the Union. Furthermore, in a world where the labeling of parties like Orbán’s FIDESZ as “‘fascist’, extremist or far-right” does nothing to delegitimize them, reconsideration of the tools used to ensure continued liberal democracy are in order. A step away from tools like the EU’s acquis communautaire and financial incentives is necessary, and perhaps more effort in remedying the root causes of populism are in order. Recognition of certain factors such as anti-immigrant sentiment or economic insecurity as underlying factors for the growth in populism is important, but consideration on how these might be improved is necessary. Otherwise, liberal democracy risks pushing an increasingly diverse group towards the populist movements it looks to prevent.