Re: The horrors of Ukraine....a personal viewpoint
Posted by diogenes on 2025-October-14 10:13:38, TuesdayIn reply to The horrors of Ukraine....a personal viewpoint posted by andrew_bl on 2025-October-9 19:35:45, Thursday
|
I agree on the need for security, but the continued fighting is not helping this object, as you yourself acknowledge when you say you can see no way of ending the conflict. When we are dealing with a forever war, surely it is reasonable to consider how we can bring about a path to peace. Let us start with a few points. (1) It is increasingly obvious that the most terrible war crimes have been committed by the Russians, and that these war crimes should be, and are being, investigated by the ICC. These crimes include the indiscriminate murder of civilians, including children. I doubt if anyone will ever be brought to account for these crimes. When the US shields Netanyahu, then what hope would there be for Putin to stand trial? Still, it is important that these crimes are investigated and brought to light in an international arena. We must recognise that Ukraine has committed war crimes as well, though these may not be as extensive as those committed by the Russians. (2) No state is entitled to unilaterally annex the territory of another state, no matter what the provocation. The invasion of Ukraine is itself a war crime, comparable to the partition of Poland by the Germans and the Soviets in 1939. So Putin's regime is a criminal regime that is responsible for multiple and heinous criminal acts. However, against this we must bear in mind the history of the region and of east-west relations, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet union. (1) Crimea started out as the Crimean Khanate, before being annexed by Russia in 1783. In the wake of the Second World War, the Crimean Tartars were ethnically cleansed from the region, which was settled with Ukrainians and Russians. Crimea was handed to Ukraine by Russia in 1954. The motivation for this is disputed among historians, but the transfer increased the Russian population in Ukraine by a million and thus further cemented the union of Ukraine with Russia. The population of Crimea has been mainly ethnically Russian since long before the annexation in 2014. The 2001 census recorded 60 per cent of Crimeans identifying as Russian. (2) In the Donbas, the Russian population prior to the invasion complained of linguistic and cultural practices that were designed to marginalise the Russian population and make the regions Ukrainian. All this led to tensions between Ukraine and Russia. (3) But, more importantly, the West has a history of repeatedly ignoring Russian fears about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. It is no use for the West to insist that NATO is a purely defensive organisation. That is not how it is seen in Russia. NATO is specifically directed against Russia, and is bound, therefore, to be seen as a threat by Moscow. The conflict in Ukraine between those who looked to the West and those who looked to Russia thus assumed overwhelming proportions for Russian nationalists. To let Ukraine slip into the Western sphere of influence would, for those in charge of Russia, be to permanently forgo both Russia's own security and its influence in its near abroad. To many Russian nationalists this was unacceptable. We might decry this concern for power and influence. As a human being, I wish nations wouldn't play this game. As a realist, I am resigned to the fact that Powers will be Powers. This is not to excuse the actions of the Russians, but simply to recognise that America now has rivals in imperialism. But though America's imperialism seeks to be worldwide in its reach, Russia's is confined largely to its own region. Would the United States allow Canada, say, or Mexico, to join a “purely defensive” alliance led by China explicitly directed against the US? Then why should Russia be required to accept the same terms? (4) It is clear that Russia is not going to vacate the territories it has conquered unless forced to do so. It is equally clear that the West is unable to accomplish this object unless it massively escalates the war, and perhaps not even then. If Putin's back were ever against the wall, I have little doubt that he would use tactical nuclear weapons, citing the use of these weapons in WWII and the policy that the use of nuclear weapons is justified if Russia is facing an existential threat (and, of course, this is how many nationalists now see this conflict). Besides causing death on an unprecedented scale, this is likely to provoke a response from the West which will bring NATO countries – perhaps NATO itself – into direct conflict with Russia. At this point, the probability of escalation to a nuclear war that destroys all of Europe, and perhaps much of the world, increases massively. Surely, we can all agree that this scenario must be avoided no matter what the cost. (5) At the start of the war, peace negotiations involving the neutrality of Ukraine were underway, but Biden, with the aid of his creature Johnson, torpedoed these negotiations, seeing the war as an opportunity to gravely weaken Putin and Russia. As a result, Ukraine has been losing territory and any peace will be at a higher price for Ukraine than was originally necessary, though peace there must be, for the sake of both Ukraine and the world. All this shows how those countries that choose the path of war often find themselves in a quagmire of their own making. Putin clearly thought the 'special military operation' would be a short affair, before it all went wrong; the West thought that Russia could be brought to its knees by sanctions, and that military aid to Ukraine could enforce defeat for the Russians on the battlefield, and this turned out to be wrong as well. The result has been years of grinding, pointless killing. Since NATO is part of the problem, NATO ought to be disbanded and a new security structure set up. But since this is unlikely to happen, we must at least be prepared to negotiate a peace with the Russians on the basis of no further NATO expansion, and no NATO membership for Ukraine. It would help if the other states adjoining Russia – Norway, Finland, the Baltic states and Poland – were to agree to the eventual renunciation of NATO membership, though I don't suppose they are in the mood to agree to such a thing now. The neutrality of Ukraine would not leave it defenceless against future Russian aggression. Article 51 of the UN Charter authorises Europe and the US to come to the aid of Ukraine if it is attacked, though whilst Russia is on the Security Council the UN decision must come from the General Assembly and/or the Secretary General. The criticism of the peace I have suggested above will be that it rewards Russian aggression. But the current course will lead to either the gradual defeat of Ukraine, or escalation into a European, and perhaps a global, war; and, although this is no justification for the invasion of another country, NATO expansion was part of the problem, as is the West's continuing failure to recognise the legitimate security concerns of Russia as a major power. A new security structure may or may not succeed, but it is worth a try. The most urgent priority is to stop the killing of Ukrainians and Russians, and the total destruction of the Ukrainian nation. It is also urgent to stop the continued increase in European military budgets so that money can instead be spent on essential infrastructure. We must listen to the wise words of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, when he denounced the West's commitment to increased military spending. How can we continue to betray the desire of the world’s peoples for peace with propaganda about weapons build-up, as if military supremacy will resolve problems instead of fuelling even greater hatred and desire for revenge?  |
Follow ups: