Pink Floyd feud becomes microcosm of broader war debate

The former members of Pink Floyd have had a long-running and highly public feud ever since Roger Waters, the principal writer of the band’s best-known material, left the group in 1984. His former chief collaborator, lead guitarist David Gilmour, carried on using the band’s name, leading to bitter legal battles. Aside from a couple momentary reunions, the two showed no interest in burying the hatchet, let alone working together again.

Recently the feud exploded, going well beyond the confines of the band and bleeding into issues of geopolitics, war, and peace. On February 6, Gilmour’s wife, writer Polly Samson, tweeted, “Sadly @rogerwaters you are antisemitic to your rotten core. Also a Putin apologist and a lying, thieving, hypocritical, tax-avoiding, lip-synching, misogynistic, sick-with-envy, megalomaniac. Enough of your nonsense.” Shortly after, Gilmour concurred, tweeting, “Every word demonstrably true.”

Samson’s tweet was a shocking, vitriolic series of epithets that paint Waters as a complete and total scumbag. This is no mere difference of opinion. Plenty of people disagree with Waters, but Samson apparently sees him as an irredeemable, worthless human being who contributes nothing but evil to the world.

It’s worth asking what brought her to this venomous string of insults. The personal stuff is difficult for anyone to knowledgeably comment on, but Waters does have a long record of public statements that can shed some light on where she got “Putin apologist” and “antisemitic.”

Roger Waters on the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Waters has recently been vocal in his calls for a diplomatic resolution to the war in Ukraine. On February 8, he even addressed the United Nations on the matter. In his impassioned speech, Waters pleaded for an end to all wars, including the one in Ukraine. He also called for a reorientation of global priorities more broadly, speaking for the hungry, the cold, the sick, the oppressed, and the war-torn all the world over.

  • “The invasion of Ukraine by The Russian Federation was illegal. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”
  • “The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not unprovoked, so I also condemn the provocateurs in the strongest possible terms.”
  • “The only sensible course of action today is to call for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.”

Parts of Waters’s speech have been cherrypicked to dismiss him as a pro-Putin propagandist. In particular, his characterization of Russia’s invasion as “provoked” has drawn the most flack.

Saying an attack was “provoked” is not the same as saying it was “justified.” For instance, wondering what provoked Polly Samson to say what she said about Roger Waters isn’t the same thing as justifying her words. Simply trying to understand another’s motivation isn’t apologia. When something happens, thoughtful people ask, “Why?” And in most cases, whether they be interpersonal matters or war and geopolitics, the answers are complex.

It would be convenient if the war in Ukraine was simply a case of irrational, bloodthirsty Russian barbarians waging a war of conquest and the heroic US and NATO sending arms to secure peace. That’s the narrative shared by most establishment media and political figures, and it’s predicated on the perfectly reasonable notion that the invading force is the bad guy.

But Waters acknowledging that the US and NATO have antagonized Russia, particularly around Ukraine, is not the same thing as absolving Putin or acting as his propagandist. Nor is it victim-blaming Ukrainians for their predicament. Waters believes the war in Ukraine is a proxy war, provoked by Western powers, at enormous cost to the Ukrainian people.

And he is calling for a diplomatic resolution before the situation erupts into a nuclear World War III. He’s implored the West, particularly President Biden, to stop fueling the war and inflaming the tensions by pouring money and arms into it. Agree with him or not, those calls for peace don’t sound like the things an unforgivable monster – like the kind Polly Samson depicted in her tweet – would say.

Even today, in concerts, Waters consistently confronts enormous crowds with challenging calls for racial justice, economic security, and peace. He doesn’t have to put himself out there the way he does. Pink Floyd is one of the biggest bands ever and he could easily coast on royalties and reputation. But he can’t help himself because he is passionate, and it does matter to him.

Roger Waters, the alleged antisemite

Samson’s other accusation, which Waters has contended with for years, is that he’s antisemitic. It’s a tough charge to shake, and one that outspoken critics of Israeli policy are often confronted with. Because Waters is forceful with his language, it sometimes comes across as overtly hostile. Critics of Israel must not conflate the state with the Jewish people themselves. By and large, Waters has always been on the right side of that line.

Waters condemns Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, labeling Israel an “apartheid state.” It sounds salacious, but virtually every international human rights organization, including Human Rights Watch, agrees with Waters. He also criticizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington, which some say plays into antisemitic tropes. But Israeli defense lobbies do spend a lot of money in Washington, and Washington does, in turn, send billions of dollars to Israel every year, equipping them with one of the mightiest militaries in the Middle East.

The Anti-Defamation League’s page, Roger Waters In His Own Words, primarily uses Waters’s criticism of Israel and groups like AIPAC as evidence against him. Arguably the most damning thing, perhaps even explicitly antisemitic, was a video Waters played in 2010 concerts that depicted the Star of David and a dollar sign together, which he later stopped using.

A huge part of Waters’s identity comes from losing his father in World War II at the tender age of five months. Waters has been committed to fighting the evils that took his father away from him – war, imperialism, and Nazism chief among them. He has always denied every accusation of antisemitism.

Not just a difference of opinion

As for the personal charges Samson throws – misogynist, liar, thief, hypocrite, tax-avoider, lip-syncing, envious, megalomaniac – only those who know Roger Waters can say. There’s little if anything in his lyrics or public statements to support those accusations. None of us are perfect, but Waters appears, for the most part, to be a fairly dedicated humanist and peacenik.

What’s so sad about this fight, though, is how Samson – and by extension, David Gilmour – employed the lowest of tactics to not only dismiss an ideological opponent, but to dehumanize him, reduce him to beneath contempt. Indeed, this is how many in the neoliberal establishment want to paint their antiwar critics: not just as naïve or wrong, but as villainous, evil, and vile enough, perhaps, to even deserve death.

The War in Ukraine brings out a lot of intense emotion, and with good reason. Any war should. But this war, in particular, has some incredibly unnuanced and aggressive supporters. Until we can break that cycle and that rigidity, it will only escalate.

Fifty years ago, Waters wrote about the folly of Us and Them mentality. Here he is now, being otherized by the partner with whom he recorded some of history’s most impressive and timeless popular music. That music carried a vital message and philosophy, and Waters sticks to it still, offering his perspective and searching for a way out of a deadly war that threatens to engulf the world. For that to prompt such an incredibly vicious tweet from someone so close in his life is incredibly sad.

We’re Barreling Toward Nuclear War, and No One is Hitting the Brakes

The ongoing war in Ukraine recently escalated to new and more dangerous heights. Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden have both begun openly discussing the prospects of nuclear war, with Biden suggesting we were closer to nuclear war – and nuclear Armageddon – than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

To some degree, Putin’s recent nuclear threats have been sensationalized. Headlines like “Putin Raises Specter of Nuclear Weapons Following Battlefield Losses” make it sound like he’s a desperate madman preparing to nuke Kyiv. In reality, Putin reaffirmed his longstanding nuclear posture: that he is prepared to use nuclear weapons if Russian territory is threatened.

Still, this is an extremely dangerous, perhaps unprecedented, moment. U.S. intelligence places the likelihood of nuclear weapon use in Ukraine at around 25% – infinitely higher than any human being should tolerate.

Putin claims the Donbas, raising the possibility of war on Russian soil

Among many big stories coming out of the conflict in recent weeks, the most geopolitically significant concerns the Donbas. Made up of quasi-independent regions including Luhansk and Donetsk, the Donbas lies between Russia and Ukraine and has been a focal point of tensions between the two countries. The international community officially recognizes the Donbas as part of Ukraine.

Home to a large population of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people, the Donbas has been embroiled in a bloody war for years between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian military. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned the situation in Donbas, citing civilian casualties, repression of civil liberties, torture, discrimination, and other human rights abuses perpetrated by both sides.

In September 2022, four Russian-occupied regions of the Donbas voted in a referendum to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Western leaders and media quickly labeled the referendums a “sham” and declared that Putin had “annexed” the Donbas. Putin declared the people of the Donbas to be Russian citizens “forever.”

Regardless of the validity of the referendums, Putin has made it clear that he considers the Donbas to be Russian territory. His claim, though contested, should give Western leaders pause. As the NATO-backed Ukrainian military reclaims territory toward and into the Donbas, they could violate Putin’s red line and trigger a nuclear response.

Tensions are escalating with no end in sight

None of the principal actors are doing anything to cool this highly combustible situation. Putin recently called up 300,000 reservists and launched more missiles at Kyiv, demonstrating no desire to pull back his troops or end his offensive. The United States and other NATO nations continue to pour billions of dollars in arms into Ukraine, effectively turning the conflict into a proxy war between NATO and Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky formally applied for full NATO membership, an application which, if granted, would draw every NATO member into direct military conflict with Russia, per NATO’s collective defense protocols.

It’s important to understand that, though Putin fired the first shot and has committed monstrous war crimes during this invasion, he has legitimate grievances with NATO. Foreign policy analysts have long known – and Putin has made explicitly clear – that Russia would not stand for Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine joining NATO potentially means U.S. military installations, and possibly even nukes, right on the Russian border. Just as the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate Putin placing Russian weapons and soldiers in Mexico, Putin doesn’t want to see NATO forces in Ukraine. When a similar situation played out in reverse in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. nearly went to war.

Biden is seemingly uninterested in diplomatic solutions, making it clear that the U.S. is “not about to, nor is anyone else prepared to, negotiate with Russia about them staying in Ukraine, keeping any part of Ukraine.” He accused Putin of war crimes and said, “I don’t see any rationale to meet with him now.” State Department Spokesman Ned Price likewise dismissed proposed peace talks with Russia as not “constructive” or “legitimate.”

We must do whatever it takes to avoid nuclear war

This is not some childish conflict of good vs. evil where we demand that the heroes triumph no matter what the cost. It’s not possible for either side to win a war against the other without mountains of dead bodies. Putin is a powerful leader. Russia is huge, its resources are vast, it has thousands of nuclear weapons, and it is allied with China and India. It’s possible to hate what Putin has done while recognizing that his interests need to be respected.

Opponents of diplomacy have suggested Putin is using “nuclear blackmail” to get his way. They argue that if other nations see Putin scoring a win over NATO by threatening nuclear war, nuclear threats will become common in international affairs. But Putin has only affirmed his intention to use nukes to defend Russian territory, including the contested Donbas region. This kind of deterrence has long been understood as precisely the point of nukes, including by NATO itself.

Nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands and be used to make unreasonable claims and demands. That’s always been a risk. We unleashed this horror on the world and now we have to live with it. For now, we have to find ways to de-escalate with other nuclear powers while we work towards eliminating nukes from the face of the earth altogether.

Like it or not, the U.S., Ukraine, and NATO should negotiate with Putin. A potential deal could include ceding the Donbas, rejecting Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, and offering Putin an “off ramp” so he can withdraw gracefully. It may sound ugly, but the stakes are too high for any other course. People who want the U.S. and NATO to be the only ones getting their way in the world are barreling us toward a nuclear World War III.

If leaders can’t be counted on to take these responsible actions, their citizens must compel them to. This is already happening in some ways. Some 200,000 brave Russians recently expatriated to Kazakhstan to avoid being conscripted into Putin’s war. Americans should welcome with open arms any deserters from the Russian military and clog every major city with protests demanding that our country stop fueling the conflict by pouring arms into it and seek diplomatic resolutions.

Briefly, when COVID-19 first broke out into a global pandemic, there was a significant, coordinated response, because everyone felt the danger. The world learned that people and societies can, under the right pressures, work together. Unfortunately, even though nuclear war is infinitely more dangerous than coronavirus, the problem hasn’t received the same degree of urgency. Perhaps we’re too distracted, or too misinformed by war propaganda. Perhaps the problem feels too big, too depressing, or too outside our capacity to influence.

It’s tempting to simply close our eyes to nuclear threats, even to pray for ignorance, as many have – to wish that, if we’re to die in a nuclear war, we know nothing about it until the bombs have already incinerated us. Death is inevitable, after all, and it does no good to dwell on it.

Nuclear war, however, is not inevitable. Leaders around the world, from Putin to Biden, are making conscious decisions to increase the likelihood of it, playing a potentially apocalyptic game of chicken not just in Ukraine but in China as well. Every man, woman and child on earth should be passionately, actively involved in efforts to stop it by any means necessary. Territorial losses and geopolitical wounds are bitter, but they are not as grave as the infinite, potentially final cost of nuclear war.

War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Clusterf*ck

After months of tension and speculation, on February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded his neighbor Ukraine. Putin’s troops started in the Russia-friendly separatist region of the country known as the Donbas and have since made their way toward the Ukrainian capital city of Kyiv, which remains under siege.

The invasion has put the world on high alert. Western nations have imposed sanctions on Russia, markets have spiraled, and politicians have begun openly wondering whether the end result of all this will be a nuclear World War III.

No one can predict the future, but to make even an educated guess requires an understanding of Ukrainian/Russian history and US/NATO influence in the region.

Continue reading

Washington wants you to warm up to the idea of a nuclear war with Russia. Don’t.

As tensions on the border of Russia and Ukraine escalate, the United States is getting more deeply involved. Over the last two weeks, US cargo planes have delivered nearly 600 tons of military equipment to Ukraine. Last week, President Biden announced the deployment of 3,000 US troops to eastern Europe. The United States is pushing toward a nuclear World War III, and American citizens must raise their voices to stop it.

Continue reading