A Response to Cathy Young: Let’s Be More Dispassionate When Discussing Ukraine

“Young knows all too well what a chilly climate for dissent can devolve into, regardless of good intentions. This can undermine the West’s moral high ground more than any Russia-backed stooge could.”

Few will doubt writer Cathy Young’s candor and writing credentials or her professed commitment to freedom. Given what she experienced growing up in the Soviet Union, which she has recently chronicled at The Bulwark, I cannot help but be sympathetic whenever she bemoans modern Russia’s slide into authoritarianism and now President Vladimir Putin’s deplorable invasion of Ukraine. Since the invasion began on February 24th, it has resulted in the deaths of thousands on each side, while millions of refugees seek sanctuary in European Union member states like Poland and elsewhere.

On March 12th, Young published an article at Quillette, titled “Ukraine and the Pro-Putin Right.” Her vivid writing is evident, as is her clear contempt for President Putin and everything he stands for. Yet to go after those on the Right who do not share her same, precise views by suggesting that they are working in the service of the Kremlin amounts to misplaced outrage. Worse still, it stifles the overall discourse, especially at a time when nuance and keeping a level head (as opposed to encouraging censorship and binary good-versus-evil brinkmanship) are much needed. And this is not the first time Young has suggested that certain right-of-center commentators and other anti-establishment conservatives are Putin sympathizers, even ignoring critiques by those she singles out.

In putting a spotlight on these alleged Western Putinists, Young lumps together a large swath of people on the Right. This broad brush covers supporters of former President Donald Trump, paleoconservatives, “national conservatives,” libertarians, Tucker Carlson, and others. In practice, this also obscures the wide variety of views expressed by such individuals—not unlike how anarchists and “tankies” are not representative of liberals or the Left in general.

Now, there are, indeed, those like aging paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, who have expressed open admiration for the Russian autocrat despite otherwise opposing the invasion, arguing that he is a defender of traditional Christian values. Although Christopher Caldwell, the former Weekly Standard editor, has not gone as far, Caldwell has notably described President Putin as a latter-day Ataturk and a great traditional statesman, a characterization that would later be criticized by John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist. Yet many others who have either never supported President Putin or could not care less about his policies oppose further escalation all the same, such as Davidson, foreign policy analyst Richard Hanania, and journalist Lee Smith. To equate their opinions with pro-Kremlin propaganda is obviously incorrect.