Once there were a few voices in the wilderness but, now, 80 countries at a Swiss summit have called for negotiations to end the two-year war between Russia and Ukraine. With Russia not in attendance, their representatives to the conference insisted that any peace plan must rest on Ukraine’s “territorial integrity.” That demand is thoroughly legitimate though it conflicts with one of Russia’s most basic war-aims. Still, there is a flickering glimmer of amid the paralysis that has defined efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated his readiness to negotiate but his conditions are: Ukraine must first demilitarize, recognize Russian annexations, especially Crimea and territories around Kherson, reject NATO, and 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 of all forces 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 still blasting Ukraine’s cities to bits while Ukraine’s Kamikaze drones have struck 600 miles into Russia. Estimates are that over 450,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded as against Ukraine’s 125,000 casualties at the front along with the tens of thousands more at home who are suffering from effects of the bombardment including lack of consumer staples, hospital beds, medicines, lack of electricity, water, and sanitary conditions.

All these numbers will climb: Russia’s counter-attack in the spring of 2024 has imperiled key Ukrainian cities, Belarus might open a “second front,” Putin is receiving increased aid from North Korea, endorsed its nuclear program, and increasingly threatened to employ nuclear weapons of his own. Meanwhile, Ukraine is experiencing shortages of ammunition, man-power, and its economy is eroding, while awaiting new support from its allies. The United States has signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement, offered another $50 billion in aid, and more advanced weaponry as the G-7 has appropriated $280 billion in Russian assets and imposed sanctions on those nations aiding Putin. In spite of disillusionment among sectors of the Western public, the continuation of trench war-fare, and soaring costs, the Russo-Ukrainian war is heating up rather than cooling down.

Leaders of Ukraine and Russia have both staked their reputations on military victory even though their economies are verging on collapse, and their citizens are despairing. The national interest of civil society and the national interests of governments are thus objectively in conflict. The implications for the rest of the world are clear: Ukraine is becoming ever more reliant on Western humanitarian and military aid and, in the process, compromising its sovereignty. Meanwhile, an authoritarian alliance is growing tighter between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus. Each of them poses geo-political threats to neighboring states and, in this regard, it is important to note that 2 out of 3 European members of NATO are now contributing their agreed-upon share (roughly 2% of GNP). Common wisdom suggests that abandoning Ukraine will tempt their imperialist ambitions. But maintaining support might produce the same result. Continuing to pour resources into this seemingly endless war can create the impression that the West has ever fewer to aid other allies such as Taiwan, South Korea, and the Baltic states. Neither continuing the present aid policy, nor radically changing it, offers any assurance of humanitarian outcomes: only successful negotiations can provide that.

Contempt for negotiation efforts by self-styled experts only turn prolonging the war into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, human rights activists bemoan Russian atrocities even as they endorse policies that assure their continuance. Talks cannot wait for a “tactical” nuclear strike, conditions to worsen, or the acceptance of competing war aims. That is especially the case since rough parameters for an agreement already exist:

• Negotiations must include all nations directly or indirectly involved in the conflict.
• Imposition of a cease-fire and troop withdrawals to the borders of March 23, 2022.
• Security guarantees must be provided for both nations: Ukraine must agree not to join NATO and, in exchange, accelerate its membership in the EU. Sanctions on Russia would be lifted in accordance with its practices in de-escalating the conflict.
• Five miles of “no-man’s land’ must provide a buffer between Ukraine and Russia.
• Independent international agencies must monitor the peace and investigate human rights violations. For example, the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) will oversee plans to deal with refugees,exchange of prisoners, collection of corpses, and elimination of land-mines.
• Creating an international “fund,” similar to the global climate fund, is necessary to reconstruct Ukraine.

Even speculative suggestions for peace are necessary when there is only talk of war. The humanitarian catastrophe is worsening and it is incumbent upon the global community to 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! Revised Call for Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukraine War” (June 25, 2024)

O professor de Ciência Política da Universidade de Rutgers e codiretor do Conselho Internacional de Diplomacia e Diálogo esteve em Lisboa para os Mafra Dialogues.

Ao DN falou de como a guerra na Ucrânia está a ser vista nos EUA, das comparações com o conflito entre Israel e o Hamas, e dos cenários das presidenciais de novembro nos EUA.

A guerra na Ucrânia ainda é uma prioridade para os EUA face à guerra em Gaza, e tendo em conta que a China, não a Rússia, é considerada a maior ameaça para a política externa norte-americana?
Quando a guerra começou, havia um apoio enorme e um entusiasmo pelos ucranianos. As pessoas estavam emocionadas com a sua resiliência e capacidade de resistência ao invasor. Agora… a verdade é que os EUA, e usando o Vietname como um exemplo, não são muito bons no que diz respeito a um apoio alargado. Especialmente para qualquer aventura militar e quando começam a perder. E claramente a situação já não é o que era. No início, parecia que seria uma questão de meses até a Ucrânia dar a volta. Foi ingénuo e excessivamente otimista. E agora, claro, há problemas imensos.

Acha que a postura do presidente Joe Biden tem sido a melhor?
Acho que a política do presidente Biden tem sido muito boa. Ele garantiu um apoio alargado, um apoio que é necessário para revitalizar a NATO e para os EUA tentarem restringir e enviar uma mensagem para uma antiga superpotência que está a tentar reclamar o império que perdeu. E claro, isto solidifica os laços norte-americanos com a Europa e com alguns pequenos países da região na fronteira com a Ucrânia. Há um medo enorme, que vem de 1938, em relação à forma como os Aliados ocidentais apaziguaram Hitler… Acho que essa é uma falsa analogia. O apaziguamento é um problema quando parece que o outro lado está a ganhar e a ganhar rapidamente. E não é esse o caso aqui. Acho que talvez seja possível que o presidente Putin, se for bem-sucedido na Ucrânia, possa atacar a Moldávia e outros pequenos países frágeis, mas seria necessário gastar muitos recursos e meios humanos para pensar num ataque sério à Europa. Essa é a minha opinião.

Mas considera que a ajuda dos EUA tem sido suficiente?
É algo estranho, porque apesar de Biden ter dado muita ajuda militar à Ucrânia, a ajuda é temperada, tanto na questão do que é dado – por exemplo, os EUA não deram F16 – como no facto de a ajuda estar a chegar de forma regrada. Não é como se todos os “brinquedos” militares estão a ser enviados em cinco minutos, prontos para ser usados. E claro, o presidente deixou claro que não haverá militares norte-americanos no terreno. O último ponto que gostaria de tocar é uma das críticas que faço. Acho que é importante colocar condições à ajuda que é enviada para a Ucrânia. Como foi feito em relação a Israel, quando se disse que se não der determinados passos em direção à paz, o apoio militar dos EUA pode ser diminuído.

Mas não acha que é uma situação totalmente diferente? A Ucrânia foi invadida, está a defender-se, a tentar recuperar o território, enquanto Israel é quem está a atacar Gaza para tentar desmantelar o Hamas, após o ataque terrorista do 7 de Outubro, matando nesse processo inúmeros civis…
É um ponto importante. Como eu vejo, a questão não é simplesmente o Governo. É sempre um erro, da mesma forma com Israel e o Hamas, identificar os interesses da liderança com os interesses dos cidadãos. Na Ucrânia, o país está a ser completamente obliterado. É uma desgraça em termos de Direitos Humanos, tal como Gaza, onde milhões estão internamente deslocados, a infraestrutura está obliterada… Da mesma forma, o presidente Zelensky identificou os seus interesses com a vitória, pura e simples. Não acho que isso seja do interesse dos cidadãos. É outra semelhança com a situação no Médio Oriente, a obstinação de ambos os lados, de ambos os líderes. O presidente Zelensky disse que não irá negociar até todas as tropas russas terem saído do solo ucraniano. O presidente Putin disse que não vai negociar até as suas conquistas terem sido reconhecidas. O que isso basicamente significa é que não há negociações a não ser que as exigências de cada lado sejam cumpridas primeiro.

E é impossível conciliar ambas…
Certo. Se as exigências de cada lado são cumpridas primeiro, então não há razão para negociar. Por isso acho que as negociações vão ter de ser impostas a partir de fora, na Ucrânia e em Gaza. Independentemente das diferenças.

O último pacote de ajuda à Ucrânia demorou mais de um ano a ser aprovado e só agora está a chegar à frente. E o que vemos é a Rússia a avançar, com os ucranianos a ter dificuldades para se defenderem. Ao atrasar essa ajuda, será que os EUA não tornaram mais difícil chegar a uma posição de negociar?
Na minha opinião, e esta é uma posição que também sempre tomei em relação aos palestinianos, a questão é: será que querem minimizar as perdas ou continuar a apostar que, apesar de estarem a perder, no final vão ganhar? Será que isso faz sentido? Eu iria mais para a primeira hipótese do que para a segunda, embora seja menos dramático e menos heroico. Mas o que levantou foi uma preocupação crucial. O problema não foi com esse pacote de ajuda. O problema não foi o presidente Biden ou os democratas. O problema foram os republicanos. E também, tenho de dizer, a extrema-esquerda do Partido Democrata. De certa forma, os extremos unem-se. Para os republicanos, o isolacionismo é um tema que remonta ao presidente Wilson e à Liga das Nações, nos Anos 1920. A ideia da América Primeiro, que o ex-presidente Trump usa, era o slogan do movimento quase fascista dos Anos 1930. O movimento da América Primeiro queria que a América ficasse de fora do conflito entre fascistas e antifascistas e, nesse processo, tender a favor dos fascistas. Hoje, para os republicanos, a situação é semelhante. O partido quer que os EUA fiquem de fora da batalha, de forma a ajudar a Rússia. Se recuarmos uns anos e pensarmos nas ligações que existiam entre Putin e Trump, é claro que a posição que foi apresentada foi basicamente ordenada pelo ex-presidente, que tem muito controlo do partido nesta altura.

E no caso dos democratas?
Com os democratas da extrema-esquerda é um pouco diferente. Na minha opinião, eles têm uma certa visão de um anti-imperialismo romântico. E isso envolve uma desconfiança dos EUA em questões de política externa. Alguns têm uma certa tendência de olhar para Putin com um olho na antiga União Soviética, de uma forma romântica. É completamente irrealista. Além disso, alguém me disse isto e há uma certa verdade: a esquerda americana que tem problemas em entender algo em que os EUA não são os vilões. Isso é uma posição que remonta, na realidade, à Guerra Fria e às lutas contra a Guerra no Vietname, pelas quais tive grande simpatia. A falta de confiança que é dada à NATO por esta setor da cidadania é real e tem raízes sérias no anti-imperialismo. E existe a crença básica, entre muitos, de que a NATO provocou a guerra. Por outras palavras, ao instigar, ao cortejar de forma tão forte a Ucrânia, eles atiçaram o urso. Não acho que isto faça sentido, mas muitas pessoas acreditam. Logo, há uma certa convergência entre dois grupos que, de outra forma, não têm nada a ver um com o outro. Mas isso torna-se num bloqueio e não tenho dúvida que isto será um tema nas próximas eleições.

Se os democratas recuperarem o controlo do Congresso, mesmo que Biden ganhe, esse grupo à esquerda poderá colocar barreiras a mais apoio à Ucrânia?
É possível, mas é um grupo muito pequeno e muito menos poderoso do que os extremistas do Partido Republicano. Há quem diga que se Trump ganhar, haverá uma continuação da política atual. Porque será do interesse nacional não apoiar a Rússia, alinhar-se com a China, continuar a dar armas à Ucrânia. Não acho que seja verdade. Assumir que Trump vai atuar com este tipo de realpolitik rigorosa é um erro. E a sua visão de interesse nacional é sempre identificada com o seu próprio interesse. E, se isto é verdade, então vamos ver uma quebra brusca do apoio.

É isso que acha que vai acontecer se Trump ganhar?
Acho que será um desastre. A minha posição sobre muitas coisas na política é: “Se alguém te diz algo, acredita. Não o descartes.” Trump ameaçou cortar entre um terço e metade de todos os funcionários federais. Também prometeu uma purga nos Serviços de Informação e no FBI, colocando as suas pessoas nos cargos, e assim enfraquecendo a separação dos poderes e reforçando o seu próprio poder. Acho que a vitória de Trump também iria capacitar os racistas, a extrema-direita, os supremacistas, os nacionalistas cristãos… Vão sentir-se encorajados. Questões como o aborto e outros assuntos que estão ligados aos direitos e liberdades civis, vão ser empurrados da mesa.

Acha que poderá ser ainda pior do que os primeiros quatro anos?
O abismo não tem fim, digamos assim. E em matéria de política externa, Rússia à parte, haverá também claramente um recuar de fundos em todo o lado. A crença básica dos seus apoiantes é: “Por que é que temos que enviar este dinheiro todo para o estrangeiro, quando temos tantos problemas em casa?” Claro que os EUA não estão a chegar ao pé do presidente Zelensky e a dar-lhe 60 mil milhões… O material é fabricado nos EUA.

Grande parte do dinheiro fica na indústria de armas nos EUA, logo está basicamente a ajudar a economia norte-americana…
A maioria das pessoas não sabe disso. E depois há o racismo crescente, que está a tornar-se corrosivo. As coisas que são permitidas na esfera pública… E podia ser legitimo falar assim, agir assim, nos estados mais reacionários. Mas que isto esteja a acontecer a nível federal… é muito embaraçoso.

Mas para muitos, Biden não é uma boa alternativa…
Eu não percebo que se fale da questão da idade. A diferença de idades entre eles não é assim tão grande. Trump não é propriamente um jovem. E, talvez por ser mais velho, acho que devemos julgar o homem pelo que ele fez politicamente. Biden já apresentou mais projetos de lei para lidar com temas do interesse dos cidadãos americanos do que qualquer presidente desde Franklin Roosevelt ou Lyndon Johnson. Tem sido uma megamudança. Os empréstimos dos alunos que foram perdoados, a infraestrutura que foi construída, os EUA reafirmaram-se nas questões internacionais, já não somos motivo de chacota… Quando Trump estava no poder, os EUA eram uma piada constante. Acho que Biden tentou restabelecer a dignidade da Casa Branca. E é um tipo bom. Isto é de grande importância.

Interview with Susana Salvador for Diario di Noticias (May 23, 2024)

As the third year of the Russo-Ukraine War continues, Ukraine is increasingly imperiled. Shoved off the front pages by the crises in the Middle East, there is mounting opposition in the United States to extending further aid. Its valiant resistance against a seemingly far more powerful fascist invader has been tainted by shake-ups in its military general staff, corruption scandals, criticisms of its battlefield strategy, and a 2023 counter-offensive that did not dislodge Russia from the territories it conquered. Even worse, Russia has launched a Northern offensive that has overrun numerous villages, caused 17,000 citizens of Vovchansk to flee, leaving 200-300 behind, and set its sights on Kharkov. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of buildings have been destroyed, Ukraine’s infrastructure is in tatters, public services are in disarray, its economy is a wreck, and the United Nations fears that 90% of its citizens could “freefall into poverty.” American officials put the number of Ukraine’s war casualties as somewhere between 120,000-131,000 with 31,000 dead, 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 14.6 million require humanitarian assistance. Young men are fleeing the country, and Ukraine is short of recruits. Convicts have been conscripted into the military and the draft age has been lowered from 27 to 25.

The situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Russia has publicly expressed its readiness for a war of attrition, and Ukraine might not survive the year. Extremists within the Republican Party are adamant in their opposition to aid and a significant minority of Democrats have little sympathy with Ukraine’s plight. Right-wing extremists have inherited the xenophobic isolationism of the quasi-fascist “America First Movement” of the 1930s while the far Left believes that Russia’s invasion was an understandable response to NATO’s imperialist aims and Ukraine’s Western leanings. Imbued with a pacifist spirit, and skeptical about the United States’ geo-political ambitions, their views converge with those of reactionaries who insist that the nation cut its losses and stop throwing good money after bad. In the New York Times (April 13, 2024), Senator J.D. Vance (R-OHIO) insisted that the United States can supply only a fraction of Ukraine’s needs for ammunition, artillery, aerial bombs, drones, missies, and interceptors (The New York Times April 13, 2024). If President Joe Biden’s critics are correct, indeed, the impact of his $60 billion aid-package will prove minimal. Moreover, should he win the election of 2024, ex-President Donald Trump has already made it known that he will not “give a penny” to Ukraine. Its future is bleak and the United States might be facing the prospect of providing long-term financing for an ally doomed to inevitable defeat.

However, such pessimism is somewhat exaggerated. Ukraine is now bombing sites within Russia and, despite the fear of escalation by its allies, this will surely continue. Much of the military hardware promised Ukraine has not yet arrived and it may yet get the F-16 fighter jets for which it has pleaded. Furthermore, the United States is not alone in keeping Ukraine’s hopes alive. NATO has contributed $100 billion in 2023, another $100 billion will be sent over the next five years, while a consortium of investors is set to invest $15 billion to rebuild Ukraine after the war has ended.

Russia’s military badly mismanaged the war resulting in about 400,000 Russian casualties and, between January and April 2024, the death of 85,000 soldiers. For all the bluster, indeed, trench warfare is draining Russia’s finances and resources. The number of active soldiers has risen by 13% and the government is still drafting convicts. The Russian army has failed to capture Kyiv or the Donbass, and Ukraine still enjoys control over most of its territory. Russia also received a serious geo-political blow with Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO. In spite of its resilient economy, defense spending has skyrocketed, and enough analysts suggest that Russia can only sustain its war effort for another few years. Of course, Russia has more resources, personnel, and especially air power than Ukraine. Nevertheless, military strategy maintains that the invader must have at least a 3:1 advantage to overcome the defender at any given point of attack.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a safe bet to “win” this war and, most likely, it will not be won on the battlefield at all; indeed, both antagonists would benefit from a cease-fire. However, President Vladimir Putin has visions of recreating the Russia Empire and basing it in his quasi-fascist state. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has left himself little room to negotiate. He has also been heavy-handed in dealing with the rights of minorities and dissidents, and pushed elections into the future. However, Ukraine is clearly the aggrieved party. Its territory has been invaded; its sovereignty has been shattered; its citizens have suffered indiscriminate bombing and mass atrocities.

To believe that either government’s interests are in line with those of their citizens is naïve. Both presidents have staked their reputations on victory, and both have been disingenuous when talking about peace. Before entering into talks, Putin demands that Ukraine demilitarize, accept the “independence” of Luhansk and Donetsk, “de-nazify,” and recognize Russian rights to Crimea and the territories that it has already seized. As for Zelensky, he will not enter into negotiations unless Russian forces first leave Ukraine, accept restoration of its borders including control over Crimea, guarantee justice and reparations for victims of Russian war crimes, and provide a set of security guarantees. Neither side is showing good faith; indeed, both insist that their war aims be met prior to any dialogue, which would naturally make negotiations superfluous.

The future looks bleak. But there are a few dim signs of hope. Exchanges of prisoners have taken place, the Black Sea Grain Initiative has enabled Ukraine to export food and fertilizers, and back-channel discussions are continuing, Without some degree of good will on both sides, however, the current stalemate will continue and each side will go on celebrating its pyrrhic victories and lying about its defeats.

America’s national interest is served neither by providing ongoing and unconditional aid to Ukraine any more than by abruptly cutting it off. Support must be conditional on the steps that it takes toward peace. This means that appropriate riders should accompany each aid package. No settlement is possible without recognizing certain claims on both sides. Ukraine will probably need to withdraw its application to join NATO and, in exchange, receive accelerated access to join the European Union. It will also probably need to cede Crimea, which is over 80% Russian anyway, compromise on the Donbass, and maintain humanitarian corridors. Russia needs access to warm-water ports, and Western sanctions should be lifted in accordance with Russian measures to de-escalate the conflict. In the long run, moreover, international commissions will surely be required to monitor the peace, investigate human rights violations, create an international bank to secure investments, and manage a new Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine.

Peace hangs in the balance. Neither Ukraine nor Russia can afford many more mistakes. Russia’s hopes for a quick victory have vanished. It underestimated Ukraine’s resilience and the resolve of that besieged nation’s allies. Meanwhile, Ukraine overestimated the likelihood of Russia’s economic collapse and the legitimation crisis that the war would produce. Neither government seems ready to compromise and, under these circumstances, civil society in the two nations might be the place to start a dialogue. New proposals are necessary to pressure stubborn dealmakers and raise the level of public awareness and debate. This much is certain: the current intransigence of both governments serves the interest of neither.

*** 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.

“Whither the War? Russia, Ukraine, and the United States” in Daily Kos (May 14, 2024)

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