Has the Tide Really Turned in Ukraine?

Plus: It's all about the gays

(Photo by Sergey Bobok / AFP / Getty)

In the past month or so, the dominant Ukraine narrative in the media has shifted from “heroic Ukrainians repelling a mismanaged Russian invasion” to “badly outgunned Ukrainians unable to hold back Russian advances in the East” (resulting in much gloating from the likes of Glenn Greenwald). While commentators have stressed that Russian war goals have shrunk dramatically—from capturing Kyiv, toppling the Ukrainian government, and replacing it with a puppet regime to capturing and holding all of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and expanding Russia’s puppet statelets in those regions—a Russian victory in Eastern Ukraine would still be very bad news. It would reward Russia’s war of aggression and enslave hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of Ukrainians to a brutal occupation that explicitly seeks to eliminate their cultural identity. It would also force Ukraine to make concessions (something that France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz were clearly encouraging, with all the talk of letting Vladimir Putin save face). Even the Biden administration seemed to be shifting the blame to Ukraine for not heeding early warnings of Russian invasion.

But now, the momentum seems to be shifting toward Ukraine again. Macron and Scholz (along with Italy’s Mario Draghi and Romania’s Klaus Iohannis) have just visited Kyiv and loudly proclaimed their solidarity with Ukraine and commitment to Ukrainian victory. A Zelensky spokesman has denied any pressure on Ukraine to negotiate. The Biden administration has reaffirmed its support for Ukraine and approved another $1 billion in military and humanitarian aid, on top of the $5.6 billion sent since the invasion began. Germany and France are announcing their imminent or current delivery of heavy artillery systems to Ukraine.

Meanwhile the latest reports from Donbas stress that Russian progress in the East, accomplished by relentless shelling (much of it in urban areas), is extremely slow if not stalled; it’s not a whole lot to show for all that firepower. In many cases Russian gains have been followed by successful Ukrainian counteroffensives.

One theory, from University of St. Andrews (Scotland) professor of strategic studies Phillips O’Brien, is that some of the doom-and-gloom reports have resulted from deliberate exaggeration by Ukrainian authorities of their predicament, with the intent of speeding up Western weapons deliveries:

Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien

Will tweet more about this later, but think the media was snookered a bit by Ukrainian briefings about the situation, which were tailored to try and create greater impetus for NATO governments to send more weapons. They mignt have made it sound like the Russians were doing:…

Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien

Better than they were. This gamble might have paid off by securing more military support, but it fed a narrative of powerful Russia and weaker Ukraine that was not entirely powerful. The Battle of the Donbas remains what it has been, an attritional slog the Russians are losing

Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien

Going to say something that might be seem controversial, but as the thread implies I’m not persuaded by the Ukrainian claims of them suffering extreme casualties of the number mentioned. 100s a day killed, etc https://t.co/tHPTzeZnQT

Arek @ArkadiuszKula

@PhillipsPOBrien Well, casualties on Ukraine side have increased significantly, and on RU side are lower than 1 month earlier. Also many in SD are encircled.

Given that many Western countries have been slow in delivering on their promises, I can’t exactly blame the Ukrainians if they have, in fact, overhyped the danger of Russian victories.

Even with sped-up weapons deliveries, no one should expect a quick Ukrainian victory. If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, it’s that it’s going to be a long slog. But the shifting news stories should be a reminder to resist the temptation of narratives, whether it’s “Ukraine is kicking Russia’s ass” or “Ukraine is getting battered.”

It’s usually more complicated than that.

---

It’s all about the gays. Russian edition.

Back in April, I wrote about Russia’s super-weird “political scientist,” ultranationalist mad guru, or possibly postmodernist con artist Aleksandr Dugin. A few weeks earlier, I wrote about some Kremlin enablers in Russia (including the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill) portraying Russia’s war in Ukraine as a crusade against the gay menace coming from the West.

Now, here’s a bizarre social media moment that brings the two together.

Pro-Ukraine Twitter accounts have posted a screenshot from Dugin’s account on one of the Russian social media sites:

Новинарня @Novynarnia

Так ось чому мскл бояться програти

Translation:

Make no mistake: The great Russia is conducting a battle to the death against the West, but what will be the price if we lose? Our immortal souls will be despoiled and cast into Hell if these satanists prevail! The West itself is founded on the principle of universal sodomy. Remember that the first act of the French Directory was the legalization of homosexuality; remember that British King William recruited boys from the oligarchs’ rebellion as his lovers, to say nothing of the Greek pederasty that inspired the British school system; remember too that the colonists in Roanoke went into the wilderness to commit bestiality with the barbaric natives. Defeat in the special military operation will mean that NATO soldiers, the majority of whom are mulattoes, will go from house to house all over Russia, brutally anally raping everyone on their masters’ orders! Of course it’s better to die in battle for the glory of God than to be thrown into this pit of vipers!

(Come for the homophobia, stay for the racism?)

This is, do not forget, a guy who may or may not be Vladimir Putin’s “whisperer” as some claim, but who headed a political think tank at Moscow State University until 2014, authored a textbook that became part of the curriculum at Russia’s military academies, advised several top members of the Russian political elite, and arguably played a key role in the launch of Putin’s “Novorossiya Project” in Eastern Ukraine that set the stage for the current invasion.

---

It's all about the gays. Texas edition.

Meanwhile, closer to home:

The Republican Party of Texas passed its latest platform on Saturday, including two sections of anti-LGBT beliefs.

In the platform voted on by delegates at the party’s biennial convention, one section — called ‘Homosexuality and Gender Issues’ — states “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.”

Chris Halbohn called that line “an unnecessarily gratuitous addition to the Republican Party of Texas’ platform.” Halbohn is president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston, an organization that represents LGBT conservatives.

“We exist to advance that niche voice within the Republican Party, because there are plenty of gay conservatives out there, there are plenty of lesbian conservatives out there, and plenty of trans conservatives out there,” Halbohn told The Texas Newsroom Saturday. . . .

The Republican Party of Texas has been engulfed in controversy over its stance on LGBTQ+ issues, including excluding Log Cabin Republicans of Texas from the convention.

The party twice rejected the group’s application to have a booth at this year’s convention.

David Palmer, the public relations director of the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston, said there was no legitimate reason for the rejection.

(There’s also a plank which says that the party opposes “all efforts to validate transgender identity.”)

What the actual hell? This has a real “the 1980s called and they want their social-issues rhetoric back” feel to it. Did someone from the Texas GOP leadership steal Marty McFly’s DeLorean? Or overdose on Stranger Things? Did the Cold War-to-proxy war escalation of tensions with Moscow cause a time warp?

Also, this tidbit from the convention shows how “political correctness” has now become “anything to the left of the Westboro Baptist Church”):

Sewell Chan @sewellchan

Another delegate, Nate Criswell, says weakening the homosexuality language would be caving to political correctness. “People appreciate calling a spade a spade.” A third delegate mentions dildos and fisting before she is cut off.

Will this kind of ultrareactionary stuff hurt Republicans at the polls? The consensus seems to be no.

James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki

Republicans' return to an explicitly homophobic stance is a great example of rarely the GOP pays a political price for adopting positions that are far more extreme than the supposedly radical positions some Dems support.

For various reasons, right-wing crazy doesn’t seem to backfire against Republicans nowadays in the same way that left-wing crazy backfires against Democrats. Still, it’s interesting to note that Donald Trump Jr. has criticized the Log Cabin Republican exclusion:

Sewell Chan @sewellchan

Decision to exclude @LogCabinGOP from @TexasGOP convention has been criticized by @DonaldJTrumpJr. A rare example of lack of consensus at this convention.

Log Cabin Republicans @LogCabinGOP

When the @TexasGOP blocks Log Cabin from having a booth at their conference, @DonaldJTrumpJr swoops in to say what we're all thinking. https://t.co/Hh8bfttdbP

Don’t be surprised if Trump supporters try to spin this, at least for certain audiences, as “Yes, some Republicans in Texas are too extreme, but MAGA world is a force for moderation.”

---

Transgender issues: Yes, it’s more complicated.

Is it possible, as Reason’s Jesse Walker suggests, that social conservatives are mistaking public ambivalence about transgender issues for a hostility to LGBT rights in general?

Jesse Walker @notjessewalker

@CathyYoung63 Public opinion has largely come around to accepting gay people but hasn't come as far with trans people. That distinction is invisible to so-cons who haven't accepted either, so they overestimate how much support there is for stuff like this. I hope it blows up in their face.

That may well be the case. I don’t think most Americans would sympathize with the Texas GOP platform’s militant rejection of any acceptance of transgender identities. In a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll released last week, more American adults said they believe increased acceptance of transgender people is good rather than bad for society—by 41 to 25 percentage points:

At the same time, only a minority thought male-born transgender athletes should be able to compete in women’s and girls’ sports:

(In case you missed it, I wrote last week about the controversy over trans athletes in women’s and girls’ sports and reported similar results from an earlier Gallup poll.)

You would probably get similarly complicated answers if you asked people about how to approach gender transition by minors. For some time, the progressive position has been essentially “a child’s declaration of a transgender identity must be presumed valid,” and people who have tried to sound a cautionary note (such as journalist Jesse Singal) have been slammed as bigots.

Now, the New York Times has published a nuanced piece on the controversy by staff writer Emily Bazelon.

Bazelon explores topics the mere discussion of which has often been attacked as transphobic: for instance, evidence that some children and teens are adopting trans identities due to influence from online and peer groups and that some minors may be rushed toward transition by irresponsible clinicians.

On Twitter, Bazelon has been predictably accused of everything from “both sidesism” to parroting the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer to being part of a clique of “cis journalists” who ignore trans perspectives. Given the ugly and authoritarian forms the anti-trans backlash is taking on the right—including attempts to investigate parents for child abuse for allowing children to transition or even for taking them to drag shows—there is an understandable desire to rally around a beleaguered minority. But there really are issues on which “both sides” have legitimate points. Open discussion and debate are sorely needed. I hope Bazelon’s article will help move the needle toward such debate.