Anti-Semitism has always had its ebbs and flows, But a bitter past teaches that it is always latent, and today it is resurgent. In the wake of October 7 2023 when Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacked Israel, butchering 1200 mostly young people, and taking more than 250 hostages. Israel responded by bombing Gaza into oblivion, killing 35,000 people, mostly civilians but with a significant minority of Hamas fighters, and leaving more than a million people facing famine. Especially in light of Israel’s measured response to Iran’s missile attack of April 13, 2024, other strategic options were available. Israel’s actions in Gaza were disproportionate and strikingly unsuccessful. They did not produce release of the hostages; those still alive will undoubtedly gain their freedom but, just as undoubtedly, at a ratio unfavorable to Israel. Hamas has not been destroyed, and Hezbollah with its 150,000 missiles is waiting in the wings. The bombing of Gaza has made Israel into a pariah state, sparked a worldwide wave of anti-Semitism, frayed relations with the United States and Europe, and turned Israel into a house divided.

An impending attack on Raffa will only make things worse. However, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has identified the national interest with the aims of his even more reactionary coalition partners, his base in the religious orthodox and Islamophobic settlers communities, and his own desire to stay out of jail after his indictment for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu’s strategy is both morally and pragmatically indefensible. Israel’s settler colonialists and Biblically inspired orthodox zealots have paved the way for annexing the West Bank, shattering Gaza, and thereby rendering a two-state solution more improbable.

Exploitation of Holocaust-guilt to insulate Israel from criticism appears increasingly disingenuous. There is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about outrage at the plight of the Palestinians, questioning the United States’ $14 billion emergency aid package to Israel (on top of the $40 billion promised over the next ten years), or calls by protestors for universities to cut ties with their Israeli counterparts, and disinvest from its economy.

Such views are open to debate. Whether right or wrong, they focus Israeli policies and a political leadership as corrupt and self-serving as that of Trump and his gang—not “Jews.” Illegitimate is the uncritical support that so many of the protestors extend to Hamas –as if this organization somehow deserves a free pass on its own retrograde politics. Western protestors turn a blind eye to conflicts of interest between Hamas and its own subjects. They ignore Hamas’ contempt for civil liberties, hatred of gays and LGBTQ individuals, brutal attacks on its political rivals, insistence on the existence of a Jewish conspiracy, use of blatant anti-Semitic tropes, and attempts to excuse the inexcusable slaughter that triggered the current crisis.

October 7th shocked the world and the slaughter of innocent lives, the rapes, and the hostage-taking was roundly condemned—at first. With Israel’s merciless bombing of Gaza, however, changes in public opinion took place. Suddenly it no longer mattered that Hamas ignited the war and intentionally put the lives of its subjects at risk by building hospitals, schools, and the like over tunnels, useful for military purposes. The strategy of mixing soldiers with civilians, and turning innocent civilians into collateral damage, served the organization’s purposes, but surely not those who must live in the rubble. Hamas’ leadership might not have anticipated the extent of what was coming. But they had to know that the Israeli response would prove brutal and, if they had no idea, then they are even more culpable. Either way, Hamas’ premeditated decision –and it was premediated – to unleash the savagery on October 7th resulted in its citizens being forced into what television crime-shows refer to as “suicide by cop.”

Western supporters avoid dealing with any of this publicly. That only makes sense since it is the citizenry that must live with the nightmare unleashed by its sovereign, wait for what Hamas deems the best possible rate of hostage exchange, and ruefully watch the wrangling over a peace-fire that neither the Israeli leadership nor Hamas actually want. Not Israelis, but Gazans are paying for this self-centered and cynical strategy. Hamas considers it acceptable. Losing on the battlefield, it is undoubtedly winning the war of public opinion. This must have been its strategy all along. It would have been delusional for Hamas’ leadership to believe that its initial atrocities would trigger the conquest of Israel. However, there was nothing delusional about wagering that an attack on Israel would put Hamas and the Palestinian question back in the spotlight.

Call it what it is: Hamas actually engaged in a sensational – and successful — publicity stunt that relied on using a barbarous act to provoke an ever more barbarous response. From the standpoint of realpolitik, the tactic was rational and perhaps that is also the case in igniting a regional war in which others do the fighting. In ethical terms, of course, it is another matter entirely. The more that terror is normalized as a tactic, and used against the oppressor, the more it usually comes back to haunt the oppressed. Those Zionist and religious orthodox fanatics mirror the thinking of their enemies and, so far as I am concerned, Hamas’ leader, Ismail Haniyeh, and Netanyahu deserve one another.

Western protestors have generally been peaceful. It is manipulative to paint the majority as anti-Semitic and call in the police to squash them. Hypocritically spouting liberal sound-bites, while prostrating themselves before right-wing political pressure, is nothing new for university presidents and administrators. They have ignored how the present crisis offered a “teaching moment” in which the university could have sponsored “teach-ins,” zoom dialogues, and more. The administration could even have set up faculty-student tribunals to determine whether free speech really was being used to preach genocide and advise on the consequences of screaming “fire!” in a crowded theater.

No university campus can tolerate Zionist extremists who explicitly condone the starvation of 1 million people, or mimic the explicitly genocidal goals of reactionary Israeli politicians such as Itamar Ben-Gver. That is also the case when it comes to slogans like “Death to the Jews!” or some half-wit “leader” of the Columbia University protests insisting that no Zionist has the “right to live” – and following it with the usual claims of having been “misquoted” before finally offering a half-hearted “apology.” Hate crimes against Jews have risen 96%, and anti-Israeli protestors should be the first to condemn them unconditionally just as “Zionists,” who so righteously reject being called Islamophobic, should be the first to condemn Jewish extremists.

Bigotry has always been a plank in Trump’s platform. His victory would strike at the heart of American democracy and impact the world. Talk by some American Muslim leaders in of opposing the re-election of “genocide Joe” in 2024, especially in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, is sectarian, irrational, and actually contrary to their interests; it is reminiscent of left-wing extremists who insist “the worse the better.” In a pluralistic society, no single issue should serve as a “litmus test.” Too many activists on both sides of the barricades seem to believe that this battle should take precedence over all other struggles and issues. It is an appalling perspective. Zionist fanatics seem to think they are living in the mythical world of the movie “Exodus” (1960), which triggered American support of Israel, while pro-Palestinian extremists often embrace the romantic anti-imperialism of the 1960s and indulge in what Theodor Adorno appropriately termed “crypto anti-Semitism.”

And confusion abounds. Supporters of a two-state solution chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” However, translating that slogan into reality calls for collapsing Israel into a new single Palestinian state thereby making a two-state solution impossible; indeed, if they are to be taken seriously, advocates of a one-state solution must finally explain how their ideal can become real — other than by violence. Substituting the fashionable idea of “non-territorial autonomy” for “national self-determination” sounds great, but it doesn’t help matters Such a move de -couples peace from land, and allows Jews and Arabs to govern themselves separately. Nevertheless, the new state will immediately experience a legitimation deficit.

Lacking a sovereign with a monopoly over the means of coercion, separate paramilitary formations will fill the vacuum in each “autonomous” region, and the threat of renewed violence will remain. Nor is there any guarantee that this emasculated sovereign can prove willing or able to sanction those who would deny rights to a minority or defend democratic institutions. Expecting Israeli Jews to roll the dice and dissolve their state in favor of a new state in which they are a minority, and whose democratic character will prove questionable, is not only unrealistic, but dangerous to both sides. Creating a single Palestinian state might provoke civil war, not only between Jews and Palestinians, but orthodox-settler and secular-liberal Jewish constituencies on the one hand and, on the other hand, between Fatah and Hamas who are currently engaged in a fierce rivalry.

Embedded in the dogmatism among protestors on both sides is the fear of somehow aiding them by criticizing us – and thereby providing what communists used to call an “objective apology,” whatever the intentions, for the enemy. The cynicism exhibited by both governments s is corrosive and, as a first step, protestors should demand any kind of cease-fire now in order to provide some measure of relief for a beleaguered Gazan citizenry. However, no cease-fire is an end unto itself. It will leave matters as they were on October 6th – all the death and destruction would have been for nothing. It would also be naïve to think that both Israelis and Palestinians will not re-arm and re-organize in preparation for future battles. Imagination and pragmatism are necessary to envision what the reconstruction of Gaza would require: perhaps a national bank guaranteed by the Arab League to secure investments; international monitors; a buffer between Israel and Palestine; and two states based on a single economy. Introducing a critical cultural pedagogy is also imperative in order to deal with deep residual hatreds. It might even prove necessary to consider a “three state” solution: Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. New ideas must resist both illusions and disillusionment and, for that to occur, they require a dose of clarity; indeed, such a dose has never hurt anyone.

“A Dose of Clarity: Israel, Gaza, and the American Protests” in The Daily Kos (May 6, 2024); in OpEdNews (May 9, 2024); Una Citta (April-March 2024).

Too many find themselves in a moral quandary while others are celebrating a supposed act of “resistance” against Israeli imperialism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, with the help of Iran. In fact, this pre-emptive strike was an act of war pure and simple, and if spectators can’t see the difference then they should buy new eye-glasses. Gaza has justly been described as an outdoor prison and Palestinians have been provoked beyond their endurance. Angered over their abandonment by regional allies following the Abraham Accord of 2020, which set the stage for diplomatic relations between Arab states and Israel, Palestinians in general and Gazans in particular have been confronted with ceaseless expansion of Israeli settlements, constant harassment and violence by settlers, a poisonous Israeli government coalition dominated by orthodox Jews and Zionist fanatics, and the increasingly distant memory of failed negotiations. The world was forgetting about the Palestinians. They were in fear they no longer mattered– they matter now.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah began launching forty-five hundred missiles against Israel on October 7^th 2023, fifty years after the Yom Kippur War, which was a disaster for Israel, but led to an agreement with Egypt. Nearly two thousand people have already been killed, many of them children and the aged. There have been reports of widespread rape and indiscriminate murder. Hundreds of civilian hostages have been taken, some have been executed, and others are threatened with death. There is no excusing any of this. Nor can exigency justify surrendering humanitarian ethics in favor of a misguided and romantic anti-imperialism. Israel’s assailants will elicit a siege of Gaza and a ferocious counter-attack that will cost everyday citizens dearly. Foreign critics will then assuredly condemn Israel’s response, and ignore what caused it, while authoritarian theocrats toast the humiliation of their enemy’s vaunted intelligence apparatus.

Israelis are scared, and they should be. Whether or not the sins of Hamas have been exaggerated by the Western press, and its talk of driving the Jews into the sea is really just for show, the sectarian brutality of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, and the anti-Semitic regime in Tehran, assuredly have not. Prejudice becomes evident when those, normally horrified by the inhumane treatment of innocent people, suddenly glorify military aggression. And isn’t it hypocritical for people who will never suffer the consequences to cheer on the militants’ attack? Those with humanistic values have no business supporting terrorist and anti-democratic movements, such as Islamic Jihad, which have in the past vetoed any and all prospects for peace with useless missile attacks. If there is anything like a “just war”, moreover, it will not permit the treatment of civilians as combatants or soldiers, and to execute them as hostages is to engage in Nazi tactics.

“By any means necessary” is not a strategy, but a travesty. Should those words be taken literally? Does the end really justify the means? Perhaps it is better to ask what justifies the end since it is, after all, nothing more than the product of the means used to realize it. The rest is just metaphysics or wishful thinking. Unless some plausible connection exists between ends and means is demonstrated there is only metaphysics, manipulation, or wishful thinking. Face it: unleashing the war machine occurred less for the liberation of the Gazan “people” than for the self-interested aims of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran.

All of them fear regional peace not because it threatens Gaza, but because it threatens their geopolitical standing. In the aftermath of the pre-emptive strike, Iran can now watch the United States scramble to provide more aid for Israel, lessen the amount it spends on Ukraine, and thus strengthen its Russian ally. Meanwhile, Hamas and its allies can enjoy the havoc they have wreaked; it might last a generation. They surely know that Israelis, like citizens of any nation, will rally around their leaders if they feel their nation is imperiled. The paralyzing polarization of recent years has already subsided and the creation of a national unity coalition is on the agenda that will take revenge.

But that is precisely what the anti-Israeli alliance wants. Its strategy is guided less “by any means necessary” than “the worse the better”. New attacks on Gaza by Israel will delay Israel’s reconciliation with Saudi Arabia, further disrupt the region, and seemingly validate new rounds of violence. For what? Hamas and its allies surely know that Israel will not collapse. But it doesn’t matter since they have no institutional alternative to offer anyway. They are engaging in bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed because their political survival depends upon the existence of inflamed hostilities, the more intense the better.

To argue that the interests of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and their Iranian sponsor are the same as those of “the people” is an act of willful blindness. I am not a Zionist and I criticized Israeli policies before it was fashionable. I have little use for identity politics and I have written elsewhere about my views and ideas on the conflict. Here is not the place to lay out an agenda. For now, it is enough to call for a cease-fire. History will call to account those who defend one atrocity in order to avenge another. Those are the people who insist upon an eye for an eye and especially under present circumstances, unlike Gandhi, forget that this will leave the whole world blind.

“By Any Means Necessary?” OpEd News (10/10/2023); Trans. Un Citta  #296 (ottobre, 2023)

Greater cooperation between the superpowers could lead them to exercise equitable pressure on Ukraine and Russia to negotiate in earnest.

Germany’s “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck coined the famous phrase that “politics is the art of the possible.” Political realism rests on that assumption. But the possible is not always self-evident. As with the Russo-Ukraine War, clarifying it requires a bit of imagination. Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive has produced only modest territorial gains at considerable expense. Its military has been depleted by 14%, 70,000 soldiers have been killed, 100-120,000 have been wounded, and 10,000 civilians have died.

Russian losses amount to roughly 120,000 dead and 170-180,000 wounded. Billions have been lost on military hardware, with economic and environmental costs on both sides. Drones are bombing cities in both nations, and ferocious trench warfare is taking place in which fighting results in only a few yards gained and lost. The drain on soldiers and material resources is inestimable. Nevertheless, peace between Ukraine and Russia will not automatically result from “exhaustion” or a “stalemate”: Things don’t work that way.

President Joe Biden is surely correct in believing that only negotiations can end the war. However, initiating them is complicated. Back-channel talks are already being held between various political participants of the conflict. None of the combatants will admit that, however. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine have staked their reputations on winning this war, not securing a tie, and certainly not by admitting military collapse. It is a mistake to assume that their interests, and that of their governments, are identical with those of civil society and the citizenry.

Both leaders have made serious strategic blunders. Russia underestimated Ukraine’s resilience, and the resolve of its Western benefactors. NATO and the E.U. poked the bear by opening their doors to Ukraine, but Russia clumsily tried to use that incitement as a justification for invading its neighbor. Most of the world correctly saw it as a pretext for an attempt to annex territory and restore Russian control over its former sphere of influence. Ukraine underestimated Russia’s economy, overestimated the likelihood of economic collapse, and misjudged the level of disillusionment it would produce among the citizenry. Putin’s popular support remains strong, and the destabilizing impact of the failed coup led by “Wagner” mercenaries was vastly exaggerated. Moreover, Russia did not become the international pariah that Ukraine and the West thought it would; it is instead supported by well over 30 nations.

Black-and-white presentations of the conflict by mass media have contributed to the mess. Russia has undoubtedly turned into a neofascist state. For all his charisma, Zelenskyy is no saint. Western media have been irresponsible in essentially ignoring the repression of dissidents, squandering of resources, disarray among military leaders, and rank corruption that characterize his illiberal regime. Ukraine is currently under martial law. Its president’s statement that elections planned for 2024 might be suspended unless allies extend “help,” to the tune of $5 billion, amounts to an extortion that plays on loyalty. On both sides, critics feel threatened, innovative proposals are dismissed, compromise is made more difficult, and the cause of peace is being hindered.

Some in the United States insist that solving the crisis rests on inviting the two presidents to just “sit down at a table and negotiate,” which is worse than naive. Official negotiations without prior back-channel agreements usually result in endless squabbling over details, and they can actually prolong the conflict. Talks prove fruitful only if they are carried on in good faith. Besides, Zelenskyy and Putin have already expressed their willingness to talk—but with preconditions. The Ukrainian president has stated that he must first verify that all Russian troops have been withdrawn from Ukrainian soil. As for the Russian leader, he first needs assurances that all Russian territorial and security concerns have been met. In other words, the two leaders are ready to negotiate once their mutually exclusive demands have been met.

Negotiations only make sense if there is prior consensus on their outcome. This means that both Putin and Zelenskyy need an “exit strategy” that will leave them with their honor, more or less, intact as they agree to the compromises that come with peace. Securing an exit strategy and the necessary consensus prior to official talks taking place calls for deft diplomacy by allies of both nations. Any future peace will call upon Ukraine to cede Crimea, which is 82% Russian, and explore options on the fate of the Donbass. Addressing the security needs of both nations would probably call upon Ukraine to withdraw its applications to join NATO in exchange for accelerated admission to the European Union. These are complex matters that require allies to use the carrot and the stick—and negotiate with one another.

Ex-President Donald Trump’s claims that he could end the war in a day are absurd. But his threat to withdraw from NATO, should he again become president, creates a looming threat. There is a chance that he will win; polls suggest that Trump and Biden are virtually tied for the lead in the election of 2024. His obviously pro-Putin stance has been embraced by his extremist followers in Congress and the Senate. In favor of ending aid to Ukraine, insisting that it is not in America’s national interest, they are echoed by many on the left. Of course, there are also radical “hawks” in both of America’s major parties intent on challenging Russia, and reigniting the Cold War, by providing Ukraine with ever more lethal military hardware. Shipping “cluster bombs” to Ukraine illustrates their political influence. It is a mistake. Not only does this type of “aid” violate certain international conventions and raise the possibility of being charged with war crimes, but it contradicts the purported humanitarian purposes of America’s role in the conflict.

The United States has supplied $135 billion, and Europe $77 billion, in aid to Ukraine since the war began. Such amounts cannot continue indefinitely. Nor are Russia’s resources infinite. It is a mistake to rely on unstinting support from allies, such as China or Iran, whose interests are purely geopolitical. Whatever the short-run benefits, Ukraine and Russia stand in danger of compromising their sovereignty by incurring colossal financial and military debts from other, more powerful, nations. The United States and Europe must exploit that eventuality in forging a third path, based neither on maintaining outrageous levels of aid, and sending ever more lethal military hardware, nor simply leaving Ukraine to its own devices. Casting a plague on both houses, and standing above the fray, is not a policy. The war is becoming an ever more lethal global crisis that requires an orchestrated response by its foreign participants. North Korea’s new agreements on military trade with Russia might serve as a point of departure. China and the West have a common interest in limiting North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and its geopolitical role in East Asia.

Greater cooperation between the superpowers could lead them to exercise equitable pressure on Ukraine and Russia to negotiate in earnest. Rekindling talks on the nuclear treaty between Iran and the United States, previously dismantled by Trump, might contribute to setting the stage for tying aid and easing sanctions to tempering hostilities, compromising on issues, and furthering peace. True: There is a sense in which this means indirectly imposing peace. However, given the global dangers and the immaturity of the Ukrainian and Russian governments, there may be no other choice.

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/diplomacy-ukraine-russia-war

Germany’s “Iron Chancellor”, Otto von Bismarck, coined the famous phrase that “politics is the art of the possible”. Political realism rests on that assumption. But the possible is not always self-evident. As with the Russo-Ukraine War, clarifying it requires a bit of imagination. Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has produced only modest territorial gains at considerable expense. Its military has been depleted by 14%, 70,000 soldiers have been killed, 100-120,000 have been wounded, and 10,000 civilians have died (Click Here).

Russian losses amount to roughly 120,000 dead and 170-180,000 wounded (Click Here). Billions have been lost on military hardware, and economic and environmental costs on both sides. Drones are bombing cities in both nations and ferocious trench-warfare is taking place in which fighting results in only a few yards gained and lost. The drain on soldiers and material resources is inestimable. Nevertheless, peace between Ukraine and Russia will not automatically result from “exhaustion” or a “stalemate”: things don’t work that way.

President Joe Biden is surely correct in believing that only negotiations can end the war. However, initiating them is complicated. Back-channel talks are already being held between various political participants of the conflict. None of the combatants will admit that, however. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine have staked their reputations on winning this war, not securing a tie, and certainly not by admitting military collapse. It is a mistake to assume that their interests, and that of their governments, are identical with those of civil society and the citizenry.

Both leaders have made serious strategic blunders. Russia underestimated Ukraine’s resilience, and the resolve of its Western benefactors. NATO and the EU poked the bear by opening their doors to Ukraine, but Russia clumsily tried to use that incitement as a justification for invading its neighbor. Most of the world correctly saw it as a pretext for an attempt to annex territory and restore Russian control over its former sphere of influence. Ukraine underestimated Russia’s economy, overestimated the likelihood of economic collapse, and misjudged the level of disillusionment it would produce among the citizenry. Putin’s popular support remains strong and the destabilizing impact of the failed coup led by “Wagner” mercenaries was vastly exaggerated. Moreover, Russia did not become the international pariah that Ukraine and the West thought it would; it is instead supported by well over 30 nations.

Black-and-white presentations of the conflict by mass media have contributed to the mess. Russia has undoubtedly turned into a neo-fascist state. For all his charisma, Zelenskyy is no saint. Western media have been irresponsible in essentially ignoring the repression of dissidents, squandering of resources, disarray among military leaders, and rank corruption that characterize his illiberal regime. Ukraine is currently under martial law. Its president’s statement that elections planned for 2024 might be suspended unless allies extend “help”, to the tune of $5 billion, amounts to an extortion that plays on loyalty (Click Here). On both sides: critics feel threatened, innovative proposals are dismissed, compromise is made more difficult, and the cause of peace is being hindered.

Some in the United States insist that solving the crisis rests on inviting the two presidents to just “sit down at a table and negotiate”, which is worse than naïve. Official negotiations without prior back-channel agreements usually result in endless squabbling over details, and they can actually prolong the conflict. Talks prove fruitful only if they are carried on in good faith. Besides, Zelenskyy and Putin have already expressed their willingness to talk–but with preconditions. The Ukrainian president has stated that he must first verify that all Russian troops have been withdrawn from Ukrainian soil. As for the Russian leader, he first needs assurances that all Russian territorial and security concerns have been met. In other words, the two leaders are ready to negotiate once their mutually exclusive demands have been met.

Negotiations only make sense if there is prior consensus on their outcome. This means that both Putin and Zelensky need an “exit strategy” that will leave them with their honor, more or less, intact as they agree to the compromises that come with peace. Securing an exit strategy and the necessary consensus prior to official talks taking place calls for deft diplomacy by allies of both nations. Any future peace will call upon Ukraine to cede Crimea, which is 82% Russian, and explore options on the fate of the Donbass. Addressing the security needs of both nations would probably call upon Ukraine to withdraw its applications to join NATO in exchange for accelerated admission to the European Union. These are complex matters that require allies to use the carrot and the stick and negotiate with one another.

Ex-President Donald Trump’s claims that he could end the war in a day are absurd. But his threat to withdraw from NATO, should he again become president, creates a looming threat. There is a chance that he will win; polls suggest that Trump and Biden are virtually tied for the lead in the election of 2024. His obviously pro-Putin stance has been embraced by his extremist followers in Congress and the Senate. In favor of ending aid to Ukraine, insisting that it is not in America’s national interest, they are echoed by many on the Left. Of course, there are also radical “hawks” in both of America’s major parties intent on challenging Russia, and reigniting the Cold War, by providing Ukraine with ever more lethal military hardware. Shipping “cluster bombs” to Ukraine illustrates their political influence. It is a mistake. Not only does this type of “aid” violate certain international conventions, raise the possibility of being charged with war crimes, but contradicts the purported humanitarian purposes of America’s role in the conflict.

The United States has supplied $135 billion, and Europe $77 billion, in aid to Ukraine since the war began (Click Here). Such amounts cannot continue indefinitely. Nor are Russia’s resources infinite. It is a mistake to rely on unstinting support from allies, such as China or Iran, whose interests are purely geo-political. Whatever the short-run benefits, Ukraine and Russia stand in danger of compromising their sovereignty by incurring colossal financial and military debts from other, more powerful, nations. The United States and Europe must exploit that eventuality in forging a third path, based neither on maintaining outrageous levels of aid, and sending ever more lethal military hardware, nor simply leaving Ukraine to its own devices. Casting a plague on both houses, and standing above the fray, is not a policy. The war is becoming an ever-more-lethal global crisis that requires an orchestrated response by its foreign participants. North Korea’s new agreements on military trade with Russia might serve as a point of departure. China and the West have a common interest in limiting North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and its geo-political role in East Asia.

Greater cooperation between the superpowers could lead them to exercise equitable pressure on Ukraine and Russia to negotiate in earnest. Rekindling talks on the nuclear treaty between Iran and the United States, previously dismantled by Donald Trump, might contribute to setting the stage for tying aid and easing sanctions to tempering hostilities, compromising on issues, and furthering peace. True: there is a sense in which this means indirectly imposing peace. However, given the global dangers and the immaturity of the Ukrainian and Russian governments, there may be no other choice.

*Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University.

“New Diplomacy for the Russian-Ukrainian War” in OpEd News (9/11/2023);  Common Dreams (9/12/2023)

In this morally just war is it really moral to keep demanding useless sacrifices?

The first anniversary of a nightmare has passed, and it probably won’t be the last. The body bags are multiplying day by day.

Russian military losses are staggering, well over 100,000 killed or wounded. Ukraine has suffered over 20,000 casualties, many more have died from malnutrition and sickness, and more than 20% of the population, eight-million refugees, have fled the country. As Russia despairs over lost hopes, and its declining international prestige, Ukraine is mired in rubble. Its infrastructure has been smashed, its environment incalculably devasted, and its citizenry is living in fear. Centralization of power is taking place in both Russia and Ukraine. Dissenters are driven underground, minorities are fearful, human rights are compromised, corruption is widespread, and public life is decaying. Increasingly, the gap is widening between the interests of two sovereigns, which they equate with those of their nations, and their subjects who must bear the burden of their choices.

Terminating assistance for Ukraine remains unthinkable, but tying aid to conditions attendant upon its pursuit of peace is not. The United States has already sent $113 billion, twice the amount it wasted in Afghanistan, and 2023 has been greeted with the promise of another $6.5 billion. Left-wing critics are grumbling about funding a proxy war, and the profits being accrued by the military-industrial complex, while influential extremists in the Republican Party are embracing isolationism and intent on cutting off aid entirely. Moreover, polls indicate that Ukraine is a very low priority in the minds of American voters. Is Europe willing to shoulder more of the burden? Maybe is not an answer.

A new Russian offensive is underway and a second front may open through Belarus. Will the United States and NATO send troops if current forms of military and financial prove inadequate? Of course, Russian forces might be thrown back, and regime change could occur. Will regional implosion follow? The resulting repercussions are impossible to predict, and Western leaders should be careful what they wish for. Russia has withdrawn from its treaty with the United States, calling for a reduction of nuclear weapons, and President Vladimir Putin’s disclaimers concerning tactical nuclear strikes should not be taken at face value. That is especially the case if he feels himself backed into a corner without an exit option.

Two global blocs are forming that feature the United States, NATO, Great Britain, and Ukraine on one side and China, North Korea, Iran, South Africa, possibly India, and the “stans” of Central Asia on the other. China is the wild card. A major trading partner with the West, China views Russia as a crucial ally in challenging American hegemony. China is engaged in a computer “chip war” with the United States and there is fierce competition between them over semiconductors. President Joseph Biden has been outspoken in defense of Taiwan against Chinese threats and, most likely, aid packages for Indonesia and the Philippines are already being prepared. President Xi Peng’s call for a “cease-fire” does not turn him into a saint, only a very canny politician. Cease-fire or stalemate, which can easily devolve into trench warfare, will make Russia even more dependent on Chinese support and, simultaneously, drain Western resources. “Neither peace nor war,” using Trotsky’s phrase, is not the same as disarmament or a peace treaty.

President Putin has re-stated his readiness to participate in an international peace conference. His conditions for beginning discussions remain unchanged: Ukraine must first demilitarize, recognize Russian annexations, especially Crimea and territories around Kherson, and guarantee Russian security. Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is no less disingenuous when it comes to negotiations: Russia must first meet ten conditions including withdrawal of its forces from all Ukrainian territories including Crimea. Treaties between friends are easy to conclude. Between enemies it is another matter, however, especially when they both insist on having their respective goals met before any talks take place.

When Russia launched its invasion one year ago, Western fears of “appeasement” were understandable. New imperialist undertakings are unlikely, however, given its losses and miscalculations. Nevertheless, sanctions have not brought Russia to its knees: its trade has “bounced back” to pre-war levels, according to the New York Times (2/2/2023), and its GDP has unexpectedly risen 3% over the past year. Given Putin’s institutional “unification” (Gleichschaltung) of Russia, which marks all totalitarian regimes, domestic dissent is also likely under control. Shifting gears, Ukraine asserted its right of national self-determination in resisting Russia’s invasion, which is in accord with international law. However, whether by design or not, it is now completely reliant on foreign assistance and the nation’s sovereignty will remain compromised so long as the war continues.

Western “liberal” mass media have mostly turned into irresponsible cheerleaders for Ukraine just as was initially the case when the United States became involved in Vietnam and Iraq. Responsible critics are dismissed, alternative policies are ignored, while complexities and risks remain unexamined. The parameters for peace are clear and, given that geo-political realities will not magically disappear, they are unlikely to change. In this morally just war is it really moral to keep demanding useless sacrifices? That seems a legitimate question as the second year of the nightmare begins.

This article is based on a speech given for a conference marking the first anniversary of the invasion, social democratic perspectives on war and reconstruction, hosted by the European Foundation for Progressive Studies (FEPS) on February 23,2023.

“A Tragic Anniversary: One Year into the Russo-Ukrainian War” Common Dreams (2/28/2023); in OpEdNews

Not to talk about peace is to perpetuate war—pure and simple—and that is something the people of Russia and Ukraine cannot afford.

The Russo-Ukrainian War drags on like a bad dream. Admittedly, there are slight glimmers of hope: Russian President Vladimir Putin stated his readiness to participate in an international peace conference; but Ukraine must firstrecognize Russian annexations, especially Crimea and territories around Kherson, demilitarize, and also guarantee Russian security. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that he, too, is willing to negotiate; but Russia must first meet ten conditions including withdrawal from all Ukrainian territories including Crimea. The insincerity on both sides is striking: negotiations are unnecessary when the demands of each have been met in advance. 

Negotiate now! The stated preconditions for talks are merely excuses to delay them. There is no time to wait. Waves of Russian bombs are blasting Kyiv and Ukraine’s cities to bits while its Kamikaze drones have struck 600 miles into Russia, whose citizens are languishing under stringent sanctions. The defeats have mounted and Putin’s possible successors including Yevgeny Prigozhin, the power behind “Wagner,” the savage mercenary group, are sharpening their knives. Following the failure of the Russian president’s initial land strategy, which littered Ukraine with mass graves, his air attacks have wrecked one-third of Ukraine’s electric grids and power stations leaving one-third of its citizens without heat, water, or electricity in freezing temperatures. Estimates are that 100,000 Russian soldiers have already been killed. Thousands of Ukrainian lives have been lost at the front, and many more at home through lack of consumer staples, hospital beds, and medicines. Those numbers will climb: Russia is preparing for a counter-attack using 200,000 fresh troops, Belarus might open a “second front,” Ukraine is continuing its land-war and employing ever more lethal missiles.

Contradictions also exist whose resolution is possible only with the success of negotiations between these warring states:

• Ukraine is completely reliant on Western humanitarian and military in defending its sovereignty. Terminating aid is unthinkable though indefinitely maintaining it at current levels is impossible. 
• Under present circumstances, Russia has an incentive to drag out the conflict while Ukraine feels the pressure to win an unwinnable war as quickly as possible. Either way, further escalation is likely. 
• Ukraine’s territorial victories have led Russia to bomb civilian targets mercilessly in a spiraling increase of violence. That will lead Ukraine to attempt strengthening its aviation corps, and air defense systems, whereas Russia will expand its army to protect against invasion. However, what both sides present as “defensive” strategies will likely turn into future offensives. 
• Leaders of Ukraine and Russia have staked their reputations on military victory even though their economies are on the verge of collapse, and their citizens are despairing. The national interests of civil society, and the national interests of the state, are thus objectively in conflict.

Congress has just provided the American military with a 35% increase and a total budget of $813 billion. Much of it is intended to replenish weapons already sent to Ukraine, and new weapons will surely need replenishing in the future. Close to $20 billion has already gone to Ukraine and upwards of $48 billion has just been allocated for the coming year, including “patriot” defense missiles. However, the United States seems ready for talks: President Joe Biden has refused to send battle tanks, precision missiles, and fighter jets to Ukraine even while pressuring Iran to cease sending drones to Russia. That can all change. The House of Representatives in 2023 will have a new Republican majority controlled by its far-right wing. That faction’s most extremist representatives are very influential. They blame inflation on aid to Ukraine, call for abolishing it completely, and consider this “Biden’s war.” 

The United Kingdom is the second largest donor to Ukraine; it has provided roughly 2.3 billion euros in aid during 2022. However, the UK is expecting a recession; it is still reeling from Brexit, erratic economic policies, and its inflation rate is over 10%. The European Union is now shouldering more of the burden by implementing a total embargo on importing Russian oil. This will negatively impact the Russian economy, but also create hardships for its own citizens. Fissures are also growing between the Eastern and Western democracies over how to distribute the costs of aid as well as the destructive capacities of weapons sent to Ukraine. Understandably, Eastern countries are more worried about Russian territorial ambitions than their Western counterparts. They also differ in their views on possibility of war between NATO and Russia. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible for any of them to ignore signs of an alliance forming between Russia, Iran, China, Belarus, and other dictatorships, to counter NATO.

Western media justifiably salutes the courage and resilience of Ukraine in facing Russia’s genocidal invasion. However, support for the citizens of Ukraine is uncritically conflated with support for the government’s war efforts. Such thinking is compounded by fears of “appeasement,” though costs imposed by this war should temper Russia’s imperialist ambitions for the foreseeable future. Self-styled realists’ dismissal of negotiations with Russia reinforces their indifference to turning prolongation of the war into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, human rights activists bemoan Russian atrocities even as they endorse policies that assure their continuance. Should the situation worsen for Russia, probabilities increase that Putin will launch a “tactical” nuclear strike. 

Negotiations cannot wait until that happens, there is a withdrawal of forces, and the war aims of each side are accepted. That is especially the case since rough parameters for an agreement exist. 

• Negotiations must include all nations directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, and initially call for immediate de-escalation and troop withdrawals to the borders of March 23, 2022. 
• Security guarantees are necessary for both nations: Ukraine must agree to become a neutral and non-nuclear state, and agree to remain outside NATO in exchange for permission join the EU. Sanctions on Russia would be lifted in accordance with its de-escalation of the conflict. 
• Monitoring the implementation of peace and investigating human rights violations must involve independent international agencies. For example, the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) will need to oversee plans to deal with refugees, exchange of prisoners, collection of corpses, and elimination of land-mines. 
• Creating an international “fund, similar perhaps to the global climate fund, is necessary for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Continuing support for Ukraine is vital, but it must come with conditions. Even speculative suggestions for peace are necessary when there is only talk of war. The humanitarian catastrophe is worsening and the global community must prioritize the material needs of everyday citizens (and soldiers) over those of governments. Not to talk about peace is to perpetuate war—pure and simple—and that is something the people of Russia and Ukraine cannot afford. Negotiate now!

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/ukraine-negotiations-diplomacy

Not to talk about peace is to perpetuate war—pure and simple—and that is something the people of Russia and Ukraine cannot afford.

The Russo-Ukrainian War drags on like a bad dream. Admittedly, there are slight glimmers of hope: Russian President Vladimir Putin stated his readiness to participate in an international peace conference; but Ukraine must firstrecognize Russian annexations, especially Crimea and territories around Kherson, demilitarize, and also guarantee Russian security. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that he, too, is willing to negotiate; but Russia must first meet ten conditions including withdrawal from all Ukrainian territories including Crimea. The insincerity on both sides is striking: negotiations are unnecessary when the demands of each have been met in advance.

Negotiate now! The stated preconditions for talks are merely excuses to delay them. There is no time to wait. Waves of Russian bombs are blasting Kyiv and Ukraine’s cities to bits while its Kamikaze drones have struck 600 miles into Russia, whose citizens are languishing under stringent sanctions. The defeats have mounted and Putin’s possible successors including Yevgeny Prigozhin, the power behind “Wagner,” the savage mercenary group, are sharpening their knives. Following the failure of the Russian president’s initial land strategy, which littered Ukraine with mass graves, his air attacks have wrecked one-third of Ukraine’s electric grids and power stations leaving one-third of its citizens without heat, water, or electricity in freezing temperatures. Estimates are that 100,000 Russian soldiers have already been killed. Thousands of Ukrainian lives have been lost at the front, and many more at home through lack of consumer staples, hospital beds, and medicines. Those numbers will climb: Russia is preparing for a counter-attack using 200,000 fresh troops, Belarus might open a “second front,” Ukraine is continuing its land-war and employing ever more lethal missiles.

Contradictions also exist whose resolution is possible only with the success of negotiations between these warring states:

• Ukraine is completely reliant on Western humanitarian and military in defending its sovereignty. Terminating aid is unthinkable though indefinitely maintaining it at current levels is impossible.
• Under present circumstances, Russia has an incentive to drag out the conflict while Ukraine feels the pressure to win an unwinnable war as quickly as possible. Either way, further escalation is likely.
• Ukraine’s territorial victories have led Russia to bomb civilian targets mercilessly in a spiraling increase of violence. That will lead Ukraine to attempt strengthening its aviation corps, and air defense systems, whereas Russia will expand its army to protect against invasion. However, what both sides present as “defensive” strategies will likely turn into future offensives.
• Leaders of Ukraine and Russia have staked their reputations on military victory even though their economies are on the verge of collapse, and their citizens are despairing. The national interests of civil society, and the national interests of the state, are thus objectively in conflict.

Congress has just provided the American military with a 35% increase and a total budget of $813 billion. Much of it is intended to replenish weapons already sent to Ukraine, and new weapons will surely need replenishing in the future. Close to $20 billion has already gone to Ukraine and upwards of $48 billion has just been allocated for the coming year, including “patriot” defense missiles. However, the United States seems ready for talks: President Joe Biden has refused to send battle tanks, precision missiles, and fighter jets to Ukraine even while pressuring Iran to cease sending drones to Russia. That can all change. The House of Representatives in 2023 will have a new Republican majority controlled by its far-right wing. That faction’s most extremist representatives are very influential. They blame inflation on aid to Ukraine, call for abolishing it completely, and consider this “Biden’s war.”

The United Kingdom is the second largest donor to Ukraine; it has provided roughly 2.3 billion euros in aid during 2022. However, the UK is expecting a recession; it is still reeling from Brexit, erratic economic policies, and its inflation rate is over 10%. The European Union is now shouldering more of the burden by implementing a total embargo on importing Russian oil. This will negatively impact the Russian economy, but also create hardships for its own citizens. Fissures are also growing between the Eastern and Western democracies over how to distribute the costs of aid as well as the destructive capacities of weapons sent to Ukraine. Understandably, Eastern countries are more worried about Russian territorial ambitions than their Western counterparts. They also differ in their views on possibility of war between NATO and Russia. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible for any of them to ignore signs of an alliance forming between Russia, Iran, China, Belarus, and other dictatorships, to counter NATO.

Western media justifiably salutes the courage and resilience of Ukraine in facing Russia’s genocidal invasion. However, support for the citizens of Ukraine is uncritically conflated with support for the government’s war efforts. Such thinking is compounded by fears of “appeasement,” though costs imposed by this war should temper Russia’s imperialist ambitions for the foreseeable future. Self-styled realists’ dismissal of negotiations with Russia reinforces their indifference to turning prolongation of the war into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, human rights activists bemoan Russian atrocities even as they endorse policies that assure their continuance. Should the situation worsen for Russia, probabilities increase that Putin will launch a “tactical” nuclear strike.

Negotiations cannot wait until that happens, there is a withdrawal of forces, and the war aims of each side are accepted. That is especially the case since rough parameters for an agreement exist.

• Negotiations must include all nations directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, and initially call for immediate de-escalation and troop withdrawals to the borders of March 23, 2022.
• Security guarantees are necessary for both nations: Ukraine must agree to become a neutral and non-nuclear state, and agree to remain outside NATO in exchange for permission join the EU. Sanctions on Russia would be lifted in accordance with its de-escalation of the conflict.
• Monitoring the implementation of peace and investigating human rights violations must involve independent international agencies. For example, the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) will need to oversee plans to deal with refugees, exchange of prisoners, collection of corpses, and elimination of land-mines.
• Creating an international “fund, similar perhaps to the global climate fund, is necessary for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Continuing support for Ukraine is vital, but it must come with conditions. Even speculative suggestions for peace are necessary when there is only talk of war. The humanitarian catastrophe is worsening and the global community must prioritize the material needs of everyday citizens (and soldiers) over those of governments. Not to talk about peace is to perpetuate war—pure and simple—and that is something the people of Russia and Ukraine cannot afford. Negotiate now!

“Negotiate Now: A Call for Diplomacy in Ukraine” in Common Dreams January 1, 2023; on Alternet

As the Russo-Ukraine War trudges along with no end in sight, fear flourishes, frustration grows, and rumors proliferate. Among the most recent rumors in the “peace camp” is that NATO is planning to declare war on Russia. Insinuating that nothing can be done, the die has apparently been cast. Even were this the case, however, progressives should still consider the implications and possible responses to a scenario of this magnitude. To insist dogmatically that NATO is the imperialist aggressor, and the primary obstacle to peace, only confuses matters further. Never say never, but claiming that NATO is planning to declare war on Russia is outlandish and irresponsible. It shifts the discussion from the here and now, when a war of attrition is taking place, to the indeterminate future when a nuclear assault will supposedly take place.

Despairing over some apocalyptic decision by NATO in an unforeseeable future leads nowhere. Better to begin formulating the response to an ongoing proxy war in which the West is saying to Ukraine””let you and him fight!” Such a policy does not come cheap. The American Congress has just passed a new military budget of $84 billion, part of which will supplement the $54 billion already spent on aid for Ukraine. If anything would benefit NATO and the United States, however, then it is this ongoing war of attrition. Russia is being weakened by the day, and its mismanagement of economic and military resources has made an attack on the Baltic states ever less likely.

But the question remains: Is the Western public willing to “stay the course”? In the United States, a crucial election will take place in November 2022, and most polls show that Ukraine is not of primary interest to voters. Is President Joe Biden ready to gamble that the polls are mistaken? He knows that Americans are most concerned with rising inflation, gas prices, the soaring cost of groceries, and his domestic spending plan. England is experiencing even worse inflation, and the ouster of Prime Minister Boris Johnson makes it unlikely that any new regime will support such a drastic change in dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. As for France, its president, Emmanuel Macron, leads the moderate of left wing of the European community, which has (unsuccessfully) called for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Italy initially provided military support for Ukraine, but public opinion is now split over the war, and Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s coalition has collapsed. Meanwhile, Germany has been seriously impacted by the sanctions on Russian oil and gas; it would also be a mistake to underestimate its post-World War II pacifist tradition.

Members of NATO are willing to spend on Ukraine, but not put troops on the ground, or launch a s nuclear war. The only international anti-Russian initiative on the table, so far, is a global plan commitment to lower the price of oil, and thus lessen Russian revenues. From the standpoint of Russia, however, war enabled Putin to deflect attention from economic problems, rampant corruption, and mismanagement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been used by its president to strengthen solidarity. An intense propaganda campaign has been launched by Putin that depicts Russia as the victim of imperialist aggression by NATO, blocked in its attempts to retake lost territories, and leaves him to ask “why we need this world if we do not occupy a worthy place within it?”

These words are ominous. Perhaps it is not NATO that will declare war on Russia, but Russia that will initiate a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Undertaken with conventional weapons, Russia’s invasion has been a disaster by any standard. The United States lost 54,000 soldiers in its ill-fated eight-year genocidal adventure in Vietnam whereas, in five months, Russia has already lost 15,000 of its military personnel at a minimum. Putin may not settle for victory through a slow war of attrition, especially if he believes that NATO will not engage in a nuclear counterattack and that the United States will remain content with support for Ukraine’s precision bombing, drone attacks, and fighting in the trenches. Ongoing support for Ukraine with ever more powerful weapons will produce a response in kind from Russia and thus create an escalating cycle of violence, which might make Putin think that a nuclear strike should be undertaken.

For the Western alliance to take pre-emptive action, and launch its own nuclear strike, can only prove calamitous; it would dwarf the devastation produced by the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Neither NATO nor the United States is ready to ignite an apocalypse and begin a nuclear war with Russia. Most likely, it is Putin who will resort to nukes or biological warfare. Simply bewailing the threat of either side sparking an apocalypse, however, is moralism disguised as politics. The more pacifist critics of the war would be far better served by articulating the preconditions and necessary compromises for peace negotiations.

The International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue (www.icdd.info), which I co-direct with Eric Gozlan, has sought to develop such an agenda.* That endeavor is taking place in association with the European Center for Democracy and Development and the various non-governmental organizations participating in the National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity in Ukraine.*** Our proposals are honest attempts to engage the crisis in a realistic manner and ,hopefully, contribute to the politics of peace.

Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political science at Rutgers University. Among his recent books is The Sovereign (Routledge).

“NATO, Apocalypse, and the Russo-Ukrainian War” in OpEdNews (8/1/2022)

Not discretion, but clarity is the better part of valor. Ukraine has courageously resisted the imperialist assault on its sovereignty by Russia whose most important war aims reach back to Peter the Great. Russia wants access to warm-water ports, and buffers against invasion to its West and North. Whatever the successes of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, however, these aims have all been tainted in one way or another.

Russia is saddled with enormous cost over-runs, countless impactful sanctions, domestic unrest, enormous losses of military hardware, and estimates of fallen servicemen that run as high as 38,000. Exports of natural gas, and transnational pipelines, once provided Russia its border security with Europe, but that is long gone. The global community identifies with the plight of Ukraine; Russia stands accused of horrible war crimes; Poland and other Eastern European states fear its ambitions; and, most dramatically, Finland and Sweden now wish to join NATO, which President Joseph Biden has almost single-handedly raised from the dead.

The Ukrainian undertaking has resulted in much that President Vladimir Putin wanted to avoid – and perhaps he is now willing to strike a deal. For all that, however, things are not that bad for him. Dissent is being crushed at home and Russian citizens are adapting to the shortages and the sanctions. The Donbass is ready to fall. Major Ukrainian cities are being encircled. Russia now controls coveted warm-water ports such as Mariupol, Odessa, and Kherson; it has secured a land corridor that connects Russia’s border with Crimea; and Putin reigns over the Black Sea.

Ukraine is on the defensive. Russia is advancing on its targets slowly but surely. Mariupol and Bucha have experienced mass executions, systematic rape, and the torture of civilians. Shelters and evacuation routes have been bombed. Deportations have taken place. Starvation is setting in, and Ukraine’s infrastructure has been demolished. Health services are unavailable; homelessness is rampant; and capital has fled the country. Moreover, the $1 trillion in Western military aid will turn what remains of a civilized nation into a military camp. Ukraine has already experienced enough suffering. There is much more in store if Russia employs increasingly lethal missiles, biological warfare, and nuclear arms.

None of this can be ruled out, and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can spill over into other nations at any time. The reality is that Western aid is reaching its limits. Citizens of NATO countries are already grumbling about rising gas prices, growing food shortages, and inflation sparked by the war. Ukrainian sovereignty now rests on rubble.

“Take Back and Strengthen” is the new slogan, and Russia will surely keep its sights set on Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Putin still dreams of re-establishing the Soviet Empire. It is impossible to predict the future. Nevertheless, it would defy logic for Russia to invade any of these nations, at least while licking its wounds from the losses suffered in Ukraine.

In spite of media chatter about “appeasement,” however, it might be more worthwhile to consider what might be learned from the Spanish Civil War. With the battle of Barcelona in 1937, the war was clearly lost, though the final treaty was only signed in 1939. How many brave anti-fascist partisans were sacrificed in the years in between?

Pragmatic political actors hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and work for a policy somewhere in between. The best outcome is a Ukrainian victory and the worst is a Ukrainian defeat. Either way, a weakened David will still need to contend with a wounded Goliath. The most probable outcome, however, is neither an unmitigated triumph by Ukraine nor a thoroughly pyrrhic victory by Russia, but a war of attrition, some version of trench warfare, which cost the lives of countless infantrymen on both sides. Is stalemate worth the cost?

Toward the end of the Vietnam War in 1971, testifying in front of a Senate panel, a young serviceman who later became U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, asked: “How can one ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Ukrainian self-defense against Russian invasion was no mistake. But there is a point when valor turns into senseless sacrifice. For the all-knowing media pundits, and those comfortably watching and Ukraine’s tragedy unfold in their living rooms, it’s easy to insist upon continuing the struggle. In the face of likely defeat or stalemate, however, is that more realistic or ethical than officially calling not merely for a ceasefire, but an end to the fighting?

Treaties of import are made between enemies, not between friends, and cessation of hostilities will reflect the reigning imbalance of power. Ukraine will have to surrender significant territory and only the most naà ve optimist can expect Russia to rebuild its enemy, or allow the West to do so, without compensation. Negotiations on this point will prove difficult. Any new multi-national or bi-national treaty, moreover, must speak to the security concerns of both nations. It should guarantee Ukraine’s neutral and non-nuclear status and perhaps its right to join the European Union, if not NATO, in exchange for lifting the sanctions on Russia.

Any deal for peace between Russia and Ukraine is purely speculative at this point. But what is most important needs to be kept in mind. Any meaningful treaty must prioritize humanitarian efforts to evacuate civilians, assist the wounded, collect the bodies of the dead, and search for those missing in action. Peace will probably result less in a “win-win” than a “lose-lose” situation. Under such circumstances, the prime task for the global community is not secure a Ukrainian victory, but rather avoid a result in which a brave nation is faced with ongoing losses under increasingly hopeless conditions.

** Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Sovereign (New York: Routledge, 2020).

“The Better Part of Valor: Peace in Ukraine” in OpEdNews (6/15/222); Una Citta #284 (May-June, 2022)

O , some authority how to proceed;

Some tricks, some quillets, how to cheat the devil.

— William Shakespeare

Ukraine is turning into a landscape of blood-stained rubble. Thousands have been killed and wounded while possibly millions of refugees, and internally displaced people (IDPs), are on the move. $100 billion in Ukrainian infrastructure and housing has been destroyed. The environmental damage will amount to billions more, the economy is wrecked, starvation is beginning, and drinking water is depleted. Russian troops are stalled on various fronts, but they are securing Mariupol and other ports. Kyiv is the site of ongoing strife, and other cities are ready to fall. The civilian population has been valiant in resisting the invader. Perhaps they will prove successful, but the situation is increasingly dire. The bombing is unrelenting, half of Ukraine’s economy has shut down, the United Nations Development Program now suggests that 30% of its citizens need humanitarian assistance. That number is sure to grow as the war spreads from Eastern to Western Ukraine. The plight of those trapped in war zones is getting worse: Ukrainians refer to them as “the forgotten ones.”

Negotiations remain in play even as the most hideous propaganda fuels the conflict in Ukraine and Russia. Meanwhile, the United States and NATO are reinforcing Ukraine’s resistance. US assistance alone will mount to over $1 trillion. Sanctions are also disrupting Russia’s economy. Its privileged trade status has been withdrawn, oligarchs’ assets have been seized, investments have been frozen, and Vladimir Putin has become a pariah. But there is no reason to be sanguine. The sanctions are already producing a backlash. Weaponized economic policies have led significant numbers of citizens, and even some among the protestors, to conclude that the United States and NATO are pursuing imperialist aims predicated on destroying Russia–and that their president, Vladimir Putin, is right or, at least, doing what he must. The ruble has lost half its value and it is soldiers, small businesses owners, government employees, and workers with set wages who are watching their savings melt away.

Western leaders assume that wrecking the economy will drive the Russian population to overthrow its tyrant. But it can also intensify nationalism, xenophobia, and new imperialist ambitions. Russia has options. In light of its conflicts with the United States, China might rush to the rescue with military aid and new trade agreements whereas Iran is already preparing oil deals for Putin. Should Western competition with China intensify, and US-Iranian nuclear-treaty negotiations collapse, some new authoritarian version of the former “Axis” alliance of fascist powers will probably appear on the horizon. That Putin has become a pariah is only partially true. As for the oligarchs, indeed, Stalin was never overly concerned about the economic well-being of his subordinates–and neither is Putin.

Will economic pressure trump political will? That is doubtful. It is also questionable whether sanctions will shorten the war. New thinking is necessary especially when serious revolutionary opposition to Putin is lacking. Demonstrations have taken place all over Russia, but the only sizeable protests were in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Quiet rules in the rest of this huge nation. Putin’s policy is driven by a desire to recover Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. Its aims are what they always were, namely, securing warm-water ports and ensuring a buffer against invasion. These reach back not just to Stalin and Lenin, but to Peter the Great.

Strategic proposals are mostly inadequate and disingenuous. Western media commentators gravely warn that “we” cannot let Putin win and praise leader for standing up to Putin. But then they pointedly ask: have they stood up enough? What else might they try? Impose more economic sanctions? Send more jets, missiles, and drones? Perhaps implement a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. Western leaders have mostly been prudent about that option. A no-fly zone would inevitably result in air battles between Russian and Western planes, probably a broader war, and perhaps even nuclear apocalypse. Our armchair strategists, however, have more on their mind. They facilely warn of “appeasement” and a repeat of the “Munich Crisis” of 1938. Appeasement bought the allies some time to rearm and, whatever the miscalculations, the only other option back then was for the allies to declare war. Hitler was ready–is that also the case with our brave hawks?

All of them dance around the question of sending troops to Ukraine–and for good reason. Without even considering the likelihood of a trans-European conflagration, and possibly worse, the Western public would never stand for it–and certainly not over the long run. For all the tough talk, in fact, citizens may not even stand for the outrageous hikes in gas prices brought about by sanctions on Russian oil sales. Boosters might as well be chanting: “Let’s you and him fight!”

Ukraine’s labor’s lost is difficult to admit. The country has already paid an enormous price, which will rise if NATO troops are sent into Ukraine, if a no-fly zone is implemented, if the fighting spills over into other countries, and–above all–if provocations bring about chemical warfare or even nuclear conflict. Everyone hopes that such predictions are mistaken. But then, politics rests on hoping for the best while seeking to prevent the worst. All wars come to an end, and that will be true of this war as well. Three likely outcomes exist. Russia might conquer Ukraine, set up a puppet regime, and perhaps target the Baltic states next. Alternately, Ukraine might repel the invader, rebuild its infrastructure and heighten security, but still remain overshadowed by Russia. Or, finally, should the war spill over into Europe, even more destructive weapons will come into play, and the continent will stand in danger of annihilation.

Progressives must prepare for new conditions, which means thinking outside the box. In collaboration with the National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity in Ukraine, an umbrella coalition of progressive civic organizations, the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue put forward a “Statement” with ideas for thinking about the Ukrainian-Russian conflict in a new way.

Under any circumstances negotiations without preconditions must continue. That is particularly the case should the conflict between Russia and Ukraine produce a gruesome stalemate. Some speculative suggestions for other scenarios, however, Ukraine, however, are worth making in which civil society plays a role:

1: If Russia is poised for victory

• Create a provisional government-in-exile to coordinate future resistance, and provide an alternative to any puppet regime.
• Assemble plans for reconstructing Ukraine even if stripped of its sovereignty.
• Prepare for Ukraine’s de-militarization and neutrality.
• Call for a summit between NATO leaders and Putin in a neutral site.

2: Should it appear that the war will spill over into Europe:

• Consider an airlift for humanitarian aid.
• Develop cooperative plans for settling millions of refugees
• Create humanitarian corridors targeting IDPs
• Steer public opinion against any pre-emptive use of chemical or nuclear weapons in this conflict.

3: If it appears that Ukraine will prevail:

• n Negotiate with the EU and the United States for a new Marshall Plan
• Draw closer ties between the government and civil society
• Create a reconciliation commission and condemn calls for “popular justice”
• Temper the xenophobic propaganda leveled against Russia

*Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue (www.icdd.info) and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science: Rutgers University.

“Ukraine’s Labor’s Lost?” In OpEdNews (3/20/2022)