When is an attack on a peacekeeping center not an attack on peace?

News Flash!!! Putin has ordered a deadly rocket attack on the International Peacekeeping and Security Center in western Ukraine. It’s one more example of the brutality of the Russian dictator, who attacks those who are working for peace as well as civilians. Well not quite. Turns out that this “peacekeeping” center is actually a joint NATO/Ukrainian military base, where US and NATO military trainers have worked with Ukrainian troops, teaching them the finer points of handling the equipment being supplied to them by the US and some NATO nations, long before the Russian invasion. Another example of how the mainstream media is stoking the fires of war in the West.

What a wonderful juxtaposition for the American media, prone to superficial analyses in any case. In the one corner we have a young, photogenic actor (or was it, comedian) and in the other, a dour former KGB official. What else do we need to know? Oh, the former presides over a liberal political democracy (forget the issues of corruption that have plagued his presidency and party and the ongoing violent oppression of a minority by a militia with neo-Nazi roots), while the other is the latest autocrat, in a long line, to exercise one man rule in Russia going all the way back to Stalin, or was it Ivan the Terrible. You know those Russians, they love dictators. (Wait, didn’t they have two revolutions against autocratic governments in the 20^th century, one violent and not to the liking of the US and the other peaceful and applauded here?)

To facilitate this picture, let’s wipe out the history that got us to the point (anything that happened more than a couple of months ago is really not relevant, unless it shows what a ruthless villain one of the characters is) and also deny any relevance to the roles played by anyone (or country) outside of our two main characters. And finally, make sure everyone understands that this is a struggle between David and Goliath.

While this might play well in the media and give politicians like my Congressman, David Rouzer, a platform to divert attention from their attacks on democracy at home, it is a recipe for disaster, because it rules out the only real path out of this crisis. Note that wars can resolve into one of three situations: one or the other side wins and dictates the peace; a stalemate, in which both sides continue fighting over a long period of time, exhausting the people and resources of both sides and frequently resulting in an overthrow of the government of one of the belligerents; escalation and expansion of the war, bringing in more nations.

In the case of the war in Ukraine, the first of these resolutions would undoubtedly mean a Russian victory. However bravely the Ukrainians fight and however many weapons the US and NATO send, Ukraine will not be able to defeat the Russians. Should the Russians win, they would impose a government to their liking and rule Ukraine as a vassal state. BAD!

The second scenario, which played out in the first Cold War in a number of situations (Vietnam, Afghanistan, twice), would mean a level of death and destruction in Ukraine that would dwarf what has happened so far. It appears to be a solution favored by the war hawks in the West, mostly in the US. Let the Ukrainians fight and die in order to bleed Russia dry. Well, they don’t actually say that, but it’s the logical conclusion of their position. WORSE!!

Finally, further escalation (sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and putting sanctions on Russia are already escalations) would move us closer to nuclear confrontation between the two major nuclear powers, Russia and the US. It may be a possibility too horrible to even contemplate, but it is a very real danger. If this were to happen, WWIII would become the war to end all wars. Need I say it? WORST!!!

There is a fourth path which could be taken, but to go there we have to firmly reject the picture being painted by the corporate media and through their control of social media. What we need to look at is the backstory of the conflict, which involves more than the leaders of the two countries, and has its origins at least as far back as the break up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

That backstory, which I dealt with in an earlier posting, points to what the basic issues in this war are and explicitly involves a third party, the US/NATO. CODEPINK has proposed some ideas on which a negotiated settlement could be based. I listed them in an earlier posting, but they are worth repeating. We need to demand that the US and NATO take these proposals seriously (there is some indications that the Ukrainians may be) and reject the drums of war being sounded by the corporate media and their fellow travelers.

From CODEPINK

We must demand that RUSSIA WITHDRAW ITS TROOPS and commit to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, but the United States must also be clear that it supports and is ready to commit to the following:

·         Continued rejection of a no-fly zone over Ukraine;

·         No NATO expansion;

·         Recognition of Ukraine as a neutral country;

·         An off-ramp for sanctions on Russia to be lifted;

·         Support for an international security agreement to protect the interests of all people on the European continent to remain free from war and occupation; 

·         Support for Ukrainian demilitarization to the degree that missiles would be banned;

·         Supply humanitarian aid to Ukraine and support Ukrainian refugees. 

 

One additional point I think must be added:

·         US must commit to reinstating the nuclear weapons agreements it has abrogated over the past few years and begin negotiations on removing all nuclear weapons from Europe. (Perhaps, in return, the US could demand that the Russians withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.)