“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Leading Nazi, Hermann Goering, speaking privately to Gustave Gilbert, US intelligence officer and psychologist, during the Nuremberg trials.
As war in Ukraine deepens, calls across the West for punishing responses and vengeful attacks grow by the day. The invasion of Ukraine, we are warned, is an 'attack on all of Europe', and on Western 'civilization' itself.
Rather than working with rational intent to de-escalate the crisis, the US/UK/EU/NATO is rushing every piece of armoury at hand into Ukraine.
The dangers and folly of this policy could not be more stark. Not only does it prolong warfare, with multiple more deaths and casualties, but the contagion of ugly war-talk renders any possible negotiation and resolution evermore difficult.
Western 'military analysts', safe in academic offices and media studios, are 'biting at the bit' to 'take-on' Putin. While grudgingly accepting, for the moment, the perilous risks of a so-called 'no-fly-zone', some urge that it must still be 'kept on the table'.
Indeed, American public support for what would, effectively, be a declaration of war on Russia, a World War III, is already alarmingly high. US demonstrators are marching for the same 'close the sky' policy, the actual dark consequences of such still, apparently, hidden behind these benign-sounding terms.
Ramping-up the rhetoric are a range of media-feted parliamentarians, such as Tobias Ellwood, MP, and member of the MoD-funded 77th Brigade, effectively calling for war with Russia.
Yet the most dangerously siren voices for retaliatory action, escalation and open war are coming not from the usual right-wing quarters, but from the forces of 'respectable' liberal militarism.
The implicit and increasingly explicit case for war is being propagated with no apparent caution or restraint across the popular press and airwaves.
The New York Times is even prepared to peddle already-exposed fake news in service of the 'Ukranian cause'.
In further weapons-porn hype, the Daily Record proclaims: 'Deadly RAF ‘beast mode’ fighter jets that will ‘make Putin sweat’ arrives in UK'
The BBC’s Jeremy Vine - past guest speaker to the arms industry - used his own daytime TV show to impart this astonishing message to a caller:
“Bill, the brutal reality is, if you put on a uniform for Putin and you go and fight his war, you probably deserve to die, don’t you? That’s life! That’s the way it goes.”
The BBC's own refusal to censure Vine, as they certainly would others, for this appalling comment speaks volumes about the current atmosphere of jingoistic war fervour.
Putin ‘dead or in the dock’, vented Neil Mackay, in another callous and ignorant rant on the ‘imperative’ need to ‘break the Russian people’. Incredibly, Mackay seemed completely unconstrained and unconcerned about advocating the actual breaking of international humanitarian law in punishing an entire people.
Derogatory 'Mad Vlad' sloganising offers no useful language either, in understanding the roots of this crisis, or, more pressingly, how we might ever find a constructive dialogue for negotiating a way out of it.
And look no further than the lamentable posturings of Paul Mason to see how vociferously the ‘no-alternative-to-militarism’ narrative is being propagated by the 'cruise-missile left', particularly against the no-war left.
As with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, the crisis in Ukraine has shown how public support for war is garnered. States make the calls. Governments marshall the forces. Armchair generals ratchet-up the fear. Right-wing hawks and 'think-tanks' ‘hype and authenticate’ their claims. But it takes the essential voices of liberal militarists to normalise and popularise the case for escalations and war.
The ‘international rules-based order’ may be the motif for self-appointed US global policing, invasion and control, but it’s the 'moral' liberal evocation of it in rationalising ‘militarist solutions’ that’s so crucial in selling it to the public.
The liberal ‘mainstream’ media, in particular, has not only been vital in disguising the roots of the conflict in Ukraine - while waxing in racist tones on the tragedy of war in 'civilized' Europe - but in hyper-charging us in readiness for another ‘necessary intervention’.
Amid the corporate media-led mass hysteria now in support of 'hallowed' Ukraine, you will not hear of that state's relentless shelling and killing of the Russian-identifying people of Donbass. You won't hear of President Zelensky's oligarch banking connections, and anti-democratic acts, including the closing down of three media stations last year. And you certainly won't hear of Ukraine's neo-Nazi militarism, incorporation of it's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, and its deep regard for Nazi-collaborating figures like Stepan Bandera.
Across the BBC and ‘mainstream’ media, what should be the legitimate reporting of suffering citizens has turned into a blatant exercise in heart-tugging propaganda. And, of course, the scale and intensity of such outpourings has never been matched in the reporting of human suffering in Yemen, Palestine, Fallujah and other places of Western led/supported war and carnage.
The siren amplifications of liberal militarist talking points and imagery are not only obscuring and deflecting such state violence, but, as over Ukraine, fuelling the case for further violence.
Why did it come to this critical point, and who benefits?
It should be noted, firstly, that addressing the 'blame issue' is not some academic or wasteful abstraction. It matters considerably, both as a means of locating the essence of the problem, and any possible resolution of it.
"It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected."
In considering the causes of the present conflict, John Mearsheimer, leading figure of the Realist school of international relations - and no obvious leftist - is studious in his analysis and unequivocal in his conclusions: the West, in its relentless policy of eastward NATO expansion, is "principally to blame" for the current crisis in Ukraine. It's decision to "double-down" with the same militaristic responses, has, Mearsheimer asserts, been a further act of disastrous proportions.
His projections: Ukraine, played and sacrificed as a pawn state by the West, will be wrecked; the possibility of a neutral Ukraine is lost for the foreseeable future; Russia, with much more of an existential stake in this war, will persevere and 'win'; and Putin himself, backed by a resilient-minded Russian public, may weather the political storm and survive.
One needn’t subscribe to Mearsheimer’s particular field of scholarship to recognise the import of his reading, or the plausibility of his suggestions.
Even with other possible turns, we can be clear here on the basics: core responsibility for this situation rests with the West; the crisis was avoidable; and the fallouts will see considerable human suffering for many years to come.
What of the West's own apparent 'calculus'?
Biden made explicit statements days before the invasion, assuring the world that it was "imminent"; days away.
Many, including most of the left, disbelieved this call, having, quite rationally, come to suspect anything being peddled by 'intelligence sources'.
But, of course, it does now appear that Biden was stating an actual truth. The invasion did happen. And on the nominal timeline Biden claimed.
Which begs an even more critical question: having such pre-knowledge of the invasion, what did the US and other Western powers actually do to help prevent it?
Indeed, it goes further than this. We now have credible claims that the invasion was decided upon some two months beforehand.
So if Biden and US intelligence knew of such Russian plans to invade at this much earlier point, as seems likely - and while supposed ‘representations’ to Moscow were being made by Macron and others - why was no more substantive diplomatic effort made to offset it?
Some welcome, if still token, 'mainstream' questioning of the dominant narrative here has emerged, asking whether the US/West failed to see the coming crisis and act responsibly:
“…the abundance of evidence that NATO was a sustained source of anxiety for Moscow raises the question of whether the United States’ strategic posture was not just imprudent but negligent.”
Was the US, having walked Ukraine down this cul-de-sac, with no immediate prospect of joining the NATO club, so averse to losing face with Moscow that it just kept ramping-up the threats, hoping to call Putin’s military bluff? A credible interpretation.
But what if US readings and motives were more mendacious than simply negligent or hubristic?
Did the US deliberately stand back and allow the invasion to happen, encouraging Russia into a trap?
Did Biden and the intelligence agencies calculate that the US, NATO and their backers would stand to benefit from the fallout, with Putin completely maligned by the 'international community', and Russia severely weakened?
This mirrors the same 'lead them on', 'let them bleed' strategy followed by the US over the Soviet Union's invasion and prolonged occupation of Afghanistan.
For now, we can but speculate. As with Afghanistan and elsewhere, clear evidence of such may yet unravel. But what we have, for the moment, is damning enough.
"The fact is, to be honest, that we do not know why the decision was made, even whether it was made by Putin alone or by the Russian Security Council in which he plays the leading role. There are, however, some things we do know with fair confidence, including the record reviewed in some detail by those just cited, who have been in high places on the inside of the planning system. In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine. There is good reason to believe that this tragedy could have been avoided, until the last minute."
As Chomsky notes, we may never learn just how misguidedly or deceitfully the West configured the situation.
But it is clearly evident which particular forces stand to gain from the present outcome.
NATO is now massively 'validated' and strengthened. Finland, having lived in neutral peace on Russia's border, for the first time now contemplates joining NATO. Sweden is making similar overtures, professing the same 'anxious need' to be ‘safely’ within NATO's orbit.
In other such responses, Scotland’s SNP administration and camp followers are now even more deeply-wedded to Atlanticist policies and full NATO membership. Under independence - if Sturgeon ever decides to seek it - we are also now likely to see a shift on nuclear arms and stealthy abandonment of 'sacrosanct pledges' to close Faslane.
Again, as Mearsheimer and others show, none of this offers the remotest prospect of peace and stability.
Rather than recognising the increasing insecurity and dangers of NATO expansion, we're seeing the precise reversal of what's needed: the urgent abandonment of NATO - a volatile threat and relic of the Cold War - and emergency removal of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, existing NATO member countries will now plunge even more of their GDP resources into arms spending. And, of course, the corporate weapons suppliers are revelling in their stock market surge and new orders.
Clearly, the West has vested interests in spreading fear and insecurity. Like a mafiosa-expanding business, it seeks political, economic and military control of the entire 'neighbourhood'. NATO is, in effect, a protection racket.
Real diplomacy, solidarity and routes to peace
Imagine, instead, if the vast energies of states, governments, international bodies, think-tanks, academics, policy-makers, media outlets and other civil institutions were harnessed towards real, dedicated diplomacy, finding compromises and seeking peace, instead of militarism, arms spending and war.
The term ‘diplomacy’ itself has now been rendered meaningless, a token posture. True, vigilant diplomacy, working quietly, efficiently and unconstrained behind the scenes, could have settled these issues decades ago, avoiding what we’re now seeing in Ukraine.
Likewise, from Starmer's NATO-pledging Labour to the rabid war-peddling Guardian, an entire field of liberal politics, media and culture is now completely in lock-step to the ideologies and prescriptions of militarist 'resolutions'.
Predictably, we even have menacing efforts now to censor and cancel Mearsheimer for daring to analyse the conflict in Ukraine and offer a critical assessment.
Goering gave a chilling insight on how easy it is for leaders and states to lead people to war. But today, the rush to war is predicated much more vitally on the persuasive energies of the liberal class in service to those powers.
The ease with which the populace is seduced into hateful denigration of the 'other', pitch-fork responses and all-out war owes so much more to what's being propagated as righteous liberal militarism.
Any serious acts of human support, in averting further death and suffering in Ukraine, and laying some ultimate groundwork for stability and peace, must involve standing in resolute resistance to these dangerous forces.
___________________
Update: 7 March 2022
Extract from Bryce Green: Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets US Off the Hook
‘The strategic case for risking war’
“It’s impossible to say for sure why the Biden administration took an approach that increased the likelihood of war, but one Wall Street Journal piece from last month may offer some insight.
The Journal (12/22/21) published an op-ed from John Deni, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the US and allied governments that serves as NATO’s de facto brain trust. The piece was provocatively headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine.” Deni’s argument was that the West should refuse to negotiate with Russia, because either potential outcome would be beneficial to US interests.
If Putin backed down without a deal, it would be a major embarrassment. He would lose face and stature, domestically and on the world stage.
But Putin going to war would also be good for the US, the Journal op-ed argued. Firstly, it would give NATO more legitimacy by “forg[ing] an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe.” Secondly, a major attack would trigger “another round of more debilitating economic sanctions,” weakening the Russian economy and its ability to compete with the US for global influence. Thirdly, an invasion is “likely to spawn a guerrilla war” that would “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”
In short, we have part of the NATO brain trust advocating risking Ukrainian civilians as pawns in the US’s quest to strengthen its position around the world.”
No comments:
Post a Comment