War and the Authoritarian Clampdown in Russia

People seem shocked that Vladimir Putin is making aggressive moves to silence dissent and punish social nonconformity. They shouldn't be and I'm not just saying that because it's Vladimir Putin. All states, whether already authoritarian-leaning entities such as Russia and China or even so-called liberal democracies like the United States, resort to some form of internal clampdown whenever the war machine is running under full steam.

After 11 September 2001, American airports were turned into totalitarian zones. Dissent was not allowed. If you argued or protested you were likely to be arrested or at the very least harassed with additional searches and detainment – the officials would make sure your day or your trip was ruined and the costs could easily be much higher. You were also humiliated and dehumanised, from the removal of shoes, to invasive searches, to body scans, and the like. Some of these measures have softened over time while others have simply become accepted norms.

The government unleashed a massive surveillance programme – which is still in operation and in fact has continued to expand. All communications are seized and filtered, from your emails and texts, to your internet searches, and online history, to your purchases, travel data, and even your library activity. The US government takes it all – they can't properly filter it all, but it's run through processors and programs that search the data. And the data is there if need arises for a more extensive search. In some instances they also have the power to commandeer microphones and cameras and spy directly on people and while these powers once resided in the hands of intelligence agencies, in order to circumvent the law they have resorted to a host of tricks such as using foreign allied agencies and the private sector. The line between state surveillance and that of the private sector (and even law enforcement) has grown considerably blurry as we see private entities collecting data for the state and police turning to technologies like AI and facial recognition.

After 9/11, the court system more or less dispensed with several key elements of the Bill of Rights. The press was no longer free, assemblies such as religious gatherings were infiltrated, speech was restricted, and due process could be countermanded or ignored. Petitioning the government became somewhat meaningless because the public was not privy to what the state was doing – and was not allowed to ask. Habeas Corpus was in certain instances eliminated as the government kidnapped, transported, and tortured people who either dissented or were associated with those the state deemed dangerous. Cruel and unusual punishment was accepted and the state also turned to assassination – even of US citizens. Under the contrived aegis of the Unitary Executive the entire world became the war zone and the president as commander in chief claimed (in that capacity) dictatorial powers able to dispense with law and even order executions not subject to process or review.

As whistleblowers began to reveal the nature of US governmental lawbreaking, war crimes, and the state's authoritarian trajectory – the Espionage Act was invoked which potentially carries a penalty of death. Those committed to democracy and knowing that it cannot function in an information vacuum risked imprisonment, torture, and even their lives to get this information out. But nothing could be revealed that might lead to a public questioning of the war agenda. As such these people have been criminalised and their lives destroyed.

Individuals and businesses were threatened and told they were not allowed to consult lawyers or even acknowledge the government had ordered them to be silent.

To the surprise of some, the draft was not reinstated – though a debate emerged. The failure to implement conscription was not out of concerns for social rights or freedoms but rooted in history and America's near military collapse in Vietnam – events distant but still too proximate in the minds of the public. The military that emerged from that chapter operates differently and many of its leaders and intellectuals believe mass conscription unnecessary and even detrimental. But that could easily change in the future.

Given the changes in law and society after 2001, if the draft had been reinstated it's hard to imagine the government would have been very tolerant of the kind of protests that emerged during Vietnam. But given the way the public has been propagandised – including by now a whole generation of school children, such a protest movement is hard to even imagine.

In earlier generations, those who faced sentencing in court were often sent to the military – and it still happens. Dissidents like Eugene Debbs were thrown into prison and in other cases war protestors were attacked and beaten by both police and civilians. In the case of the Hard Hat Riot of 1970, Manhattan construction workers attacked war protestors on the streets. Instead of such vigilantism being rebuked, their violence was rewarded and got them an invite to the Nixon White House.

One need only look at the past to understand what happens domestically when a war is being fought. A kind of hysteria took over during WWI and the US aggressively pursued not just resistors and protestors but a social campaign was launched against those who refused to buy war bonds, and under the aforementioned Espionage Act, free speech was effectively eliminated. Even many religious leaders were charged and faced prison sentences.

And while less known in some circles, Lincoln turned to authoritarian measures during the Civil War. Habeas Corpus was suspended, newspapers were shut down, and protestors and journalists were imprisoned. He even went after judges and congressmen who resisted, in some cases having them arrested. The wealthy were able to evade the draft but for others the conscription regime was harsh and draconian. And while today's public is appalled at what's happening in Russia, one immediately recalls not only the aforementioned events, but the draft riots in 1863. Imagine today if Russia started rounding up immigrants and refugees and forcing them to fight. Just imagine the outrage. And then picture Putin pulling troops from Ukraine – only to return to Russian cities in order to violently suppress the protests and riots that had emerged over the draft. Can you envision the news coverage and the outrage? And yet in 1863, Union troops fresh from their victory at Gettysburg were sent into New York City to smash draft riots.

There was even some dirty politicking surrounding the carve out of West Virginia. Some may decry these analogies but like it or not the arguments can be justifiably made. And for those Neo-Confederates who find some kind of narrative-related comfort in Lincoln's actions or find some kind of satisfaction in his marred record and hypocritical legacy – they need to revisit their own history. The newly created Confederate States were in dire straits and Jefferson Davis also ran a heavy-handed authoritarian regime. He faced a war that was an existential threat to the new nation and he too embraced an 'ends justifies the means' approach to ethics and law and though it's forgotten today – many Southerners resented him for it. It's true that many were happy to take up arms, but the bellicosity was by no means embraced by all.

None of this is surprising. States engaged in war turn to lies and brutality. It's the first rule, war abroad also means a war at home on the population – propaganda, fear, and violence, are commonly employed, especially if society isn't unified.

In the case of Russia, they've suffered massive setbacks and losses in Ukraine and the Putin regime is in trouble. They can't let the protests shut down the war effort or let the protests percolate and permutate into raw political protest. Either prospect spells doom for the Putin regime and as such, the images we're seeing of protests and mass flight are hardly surprising. Moscow also fears Fifth Column activity and provocateurs and with good reason. You can be sure American and NATO agents are on the ground doing what they can to stir the pot.

Of course no one seems to reflect on how draft resistance in some contexts such as Vietnam is viewed with horror and is deeply offensive and yet Russian resistors and dodgers are celebrated. What hypocrisy. Like Russia's war in Ukraine, Vietnam was a completely unjustifiable war and American conduct was atrocious. Refusing to be drafted was in fact moral and noble (and for Christians obligatory) but there remains great hostility to this day concerning these people. And yet few are aware of just how viciously the US government pursued dissent and sought to infiltrate and destroy groups and movements that resisted America's Vietnam narrative. Under J Edgar Hoover the law was broken and people were prosecuted and killed.

Why are the Russians any different? I applaud those who refuse to fight in both Russia and Ukraine just as I applaud American resistors to all of its evil wars. Ukraine is a pointless evil war based on lies – lies on all sides.

But no one will ever apply the same kind of logic or moral standards to the United States that are regularly employed and appealed to when considering the conduct of other countries. But none of this matters. The news media is not about fact, context, or history, let alone discernment. It's about emotional manipulation and marketing – and fulfilling the agenda set by its corporate and political masters. And that's just as true of FOX as it is of CNN or NBC. The styles and sometimes the goals are different but the methods and the attempts at manipulation are the same.