WAR AND THE DECEPTIVE ARROGANCE OF GREAT POWERS

Centre for Britain in Europe Blog, 2022

It is hard to overstate the potential significance of the change initiated by Chancellor Olaf Scholz in German foreign and defence policy on 27 February. Only a few weeks before, Berlin was being pilloried for dragging its feet in responding to the threat posed by President Putin’s massive build up of military might along the Russian and Belarussian borders with Ukraine – and ridiculed for its commitment to send 5,000 helmets to Ukraine in response. In a speech to a special session of the Bundestag, however, Scholz overturned decades of political consensus in Germany, declaring that by invading Ukraine three days previously, Putin had “created a new reality. This new reality requires an unequivocal response.” The response has not just been unequivocal: it represents a genuinely revolutionary moment for German foreign policy.

Academia.edu, 2022

See the above BOOKS. Here, TEXT REMOVED (because of possible freedoms restrictions in Europe) (An earlier version was published in 2018 as chapter 8 in the book "Justice First") Should Ukraine and Russian governments accept or not to negotiate right now and right there where they stand, is not a matter of freedom of choice, free will, democracy, self-determination, liberty, or universal rights of any kind; this is not any question from the moral sphere, neither the question of any human values or any theoretical ethical question.. This is something absolutely simple, down to earth question: This is simply the matter of war and peace not in Ukraine but in the world. Whether some state will choose to terrorize and murder some population, whether a state can promote Nazi movements and the Nazi military forces, and whether some nations should be permitted to adhere and submit to some aggressive military alliance like NATO (responsible for hundreds of wars in the last 60 years) – is not a matter of ”a free democratic choice” but a geopolitical choice that concerns the entire world and particularly the neighbouring countries. This is THE question of existence and should be treated as such. So particularly the Ukrainian government should immediately accept negotiations, renounce the above-mentioned aspirations and wait to see what are not Ukrainian but general interests in this part of the world. The decisions are now to be taken not by Ukraine but by the world. The issue must be transferred to the highest international level. *** Ob die Regierungen der Ukraine und Russlands akzeptieren oder nicht, jetzt und dort, wo sie stehen, zu verhandeln, ist keine Frage der Wahlfreiheit, des freien Willens, der Demokratie, der Selbstbestimmung, der Freiheit oder der universellen Rechte jeglicher Art; das ist keine Frage aus dem moralischen Bereich, weder die Frage nach irgendwelchen menschlichen Werten noch irgendeine theoretische ethische Frage. Das ist eine ganz einfache, nüchterne Frage: Es geht einfach um (nuklearen?) Krieg und Frieden, nicht in der Ukraine, sondern in dere Welt. Ob sich ein Staat dafür entscheidet, eine Bevölkerung zu terrorisieren und zu ermorden, ob ein Staat Nazi-Bewegungen und die Nazi-Streitkräfte fördern kann und ob es einigen Nationen erlaubt sein sollte, einem aggressiven Militärbündnis wie der NATO (verantwortlich für Hunderte von Kriegen in den USA der letzten 60 Jahre) beizutreten und sich ihnen zu unterwerfen – handelt es sich nicht um „eine freie demokratische Entscheidung“, sondern um eine geopolitische Entscheidung, die die ganze Welt und insbesondere die Nachbarländer betrifft. Das ist DIE Existenzfrage und sollte auch so behandelt werden. Daher sollte insbesondere die ukrainische Regierung sofort Verhandlungen aufnehmen, auf die oben genannten Bestrebungen verzichten und abwarten, was nicht ukrainische, sondern allgemeine Interessen in diesem Teil der Welt sind. Die Entscheidungen sollen jetzt nicht von der Ukraine, sondern von der Welt getroffen werden. Das Thema muss auf die höchste internationale Ebene übertragen werden. *** The present version makes reference to the war in Ukraine and I have been amending it frequently. My rejection of the war as the mean to resolve conflicts has remained unchanged. In this text I tried to explain the wars, not to justify them. The explanation may contain the reasons that we do not accept, but the actors of the wars do. I exposed the arguments of the actors and I am not trying to justify or disapprove any of them. When I advance some or reject some, this is how the actors on one or the other side see them, not how I see them.The well being of the US citizens is the final goal of the US politics. To achieve this, the US superiority in many respects, including military superiority, is a must. Therefore, it is universally accepted in the US that this should be achieved, between other things, by the means of force and on the expense of the other nations. The ultimate and thereby the only adversary is a factor that can oppose the US force, and this is only Russia. All other forces could be ignored. It is believed that such end justifies all imaginable means. Belief that even the peaceful means are acceptable only if they will lead to the complete destruction of Russia creates unsupportable tension. The US strategy has been a slow permanent, step by step, approach to the Russia’s borders, initiation of the conflicts and regime changes in the frontiers countries and the similar efforts for the regime changes tendencies in Russia itself. The present Ukraine crises (caused by the non application of the Minsk agreements and terror of the Donbas citizens by the Ukarine and potential absorption of the Ukraine into NATO) is an example where the US may be satisfied with any solution that would even leave unresolved Ukrainian crises susceptible for some later incorporation into NATO, no matter in what form. All steps towards the ultimate target, destruction of Russia’s nuclear power are acceptable. We propose a Permanent Russo-American Conference that could resolve this tension.

Reflections on the Russia-Ukraine War, pp. 513-535, Leiden University Press, 2024

How will the ongoing war end? Following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, multiple unlikely endings are part of extensive public and academic debates: victory/defeat, an armistice/durable cease-fire, or a political settlement/peace deal. By stepping up to the challenge, this study examines war diplomacy in Ukraine and how it relates to the causes and endings of this war. A closer exploration of how Ukraine employs diplomacy in conducting war validates Tarak Barkawi's earlier statement: diplomacy is not the opposite of war. Diplomacy is not to be aligned with peace against war. The main objective is to advance scholarship on war diplomacy by outlining a basic explanatory framework to clarify how war diplomacy links with the causes and endings of war. The central question is: why is war diplomacy showing restraint towards ending the war that followed the Russian 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and what would it imply for explaining the causes of this war? The findings break new ground and trigger some novel inquiries.

Silk Road Virtual University Press, 2022

For the vast majority of Americans, a foreign war is something very far away that can be enjoyed in the living room in front of the television while eating junk food and/or having a beer or two. Now, in 2022, the US is provoking a war against an “adversary” that was a friend only a few years ago, and still wants to be friends, but the US won’t allow it. That is a normal thing for the US. What’s different about this war is for the first time in US history the US is demonizing, provoking, threatening and attacking via proxy, a contrived enemy that can hit back just as hard or harder. Gone soon, may be the living room, the television, junk food, beer, and most of what’s left of Western civilization. These are the stakes DC is playing with. The slide from proxy war to conventional war to nuclear war can happen in days or even hours. It’s a suicidal game with no winner, only losers. But the only thing that matters to the corporate chiefs that orchestrated this scenario is quarterly dividends. That they may not be alive to enjoy those dividends appears to have eluded them. President Biden, CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, newspapers and broadcast news around the western world are all chanting in harmony: DESTROY PUTIN! “He is the personification of all that is evil in the world!” Daily “proofs” of his absolute evil are paraded before the media zombies of the world. More media addicted than ever, frustrated and bored after the long COVID-19 lock-downs, bad economy, fears and helplessness, Americans and western Europeans need someone to lash out at and vent their anger in righteous extreme violence. In an act of charity perhaps, the US corporate driven media has served up a human sacrifice on a silver platter for the pleasure of the frustrated and bored mob, the star attraction, the personification of all that is evil, the RUSSIAN PRESIDENT! The drumbeat of war quickens the pulse, sharpens the senses, and gives some meaning to an otherwise tepid and meaningless existence. Why wake up in the morning? Ah! What has that horrible fiend done now? And there are the US backed neo-Nazis running false-flag operations, pinning their own atrocities on Russians to give western audiences what they want, what they need and crave, a Great American President fighting a known threat to all that is good, kind and gentle in the world, like peaceful Ukraine. And so, the tender-hearted cry, watching the horrid atrocities attributed to President Putin on CNN and BBC. This build-up to a war against Russia was long in the making, pervasive, perfect, and stunning beyond belief. There is no questioning the videos, the photos, the heart-rending personal testimonials and the relentless 24/7 in-your-face “news.” There isn’t any question of innocence or guilt in the minds of western “news” consumers. President Putin is a war criminal, a monster, the personification of all that is or ever was, evil. Daily, new atrocities are paraded before the western audiences feeding their hunger for more, for blood, for punishment of the demon in human form, Putin. But how many of them stopped satiating their need to Make America Great Again, to consider the possibility that it’s all fake(?) just like the last war, and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that? Who cares!!?! America needs a hero, a Knight in Shining Armor like President Biden(!) to rescue them from the doldrums of all the problems in their ordinary lives. This is nothing new as noted by Stephen J. Heidt in his illuminating “Presidential Power and National Violence: James K. Polk’s Rhetorical Transfer of Savagery.” What is new is 1) the newly heightened technologically perfect, air-tight censorship in the west, and 2) the perfect fusion of Hollywood style theatrical "magic" and mainstream media news. To break the hypnotic spell binding fast the remnants of western civilization, this 346-page book contains history, a dispassionate review of the broadest range of available news, political analysis, a review of American and international laws and psycho-social analysis, and then lights the only possible path to a just peace guaranteeing self-determination and dignity for all. Don't read it at your own, and your family's risk. Or, read and share it with as many as possible as quickly as possible, for failure to do so may be more horrifying than any Euro-American can possible imagine. The rest of us? We've had 500 years of this and have had enough. The average 4-year-old learns cooperative play, and it's about time the US learns it too, before its too late, for everyone.

Research Gate, 2022

The 2022 Munich Security Conference undergirds the fact that the year 2021 was clearly not a year for geopolitical optimism and suggests the emergence of “collective helplessness” in the face of a plethora of crises that reinforce each other. Hence, against this “collective helplessness,” the hypothesis of the study, the only way to avoid war in Europe is to revive and make the Minsk process palatable to Russia, stems from the research question - what are the geopolitical trajectories that may diminish the advent of a New Cold War in Europe. Today, Russia has undertaken “military-technical” measures by unilaterally challenging NATO’s open door to Ukraine, after years of European security negotiations that produced many pacts. For Russia, this is tantamount to a new Cold War, a reminder of 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world teetered on the brink of a nuclear war. Russia is discernibly alarmed by the expansion of NATO right to Russia’s frontiers in contravention of the post-Cold War order. Russia’s diplomatic and martial foray to support Donetsk and Luhansk separatist regions in Donbas, eastern Ukraine will definitely test European tenacity. While it can mount a full-scale invasion on Ukraine; nevertheless, the cost of doing so may be too ghastly to contemplate even at the reward of transmuting the post-Cold War security architecture. Moreover, a Russian invasion has turn turtled the norms of global security that have been in place since WWII. In the immediate term, sanctions will not have a devastating bearing to thwart it from invading its neighbours; indeed, Russia has amassed enough capital to resist embargoes. How-ever, Russian actions have unsettled the West and NATO’s broadcast of allegiance to mutual de-fence may have comforted weaker allies in the front line. Russia’s conduct could also fret its main ally, China, which will be wary of associating with such conflict at a time when it BRI is in full swing globally. A protracted conflict and swelling fatalities would also ensemble drain the Russian economy and ferment popular anger back home, but, unfortunately, these threats do not seem to have dwarfed the Slavic geopolitical gains of shaking-up the Western alliance. To stem the tide of a blood bath, the discourse must hone in at the nucleus of the confluence of the persistence of the wars that engulfed Ukraine for centuries and the narratives that immersed global governance architecture since the founding of the League of Nations. Keywords: collective helplessness, unlearning helplessness, New Cold War, Ukraine, Russia, NATO, Cuban Missile Crisis, Minsk, Helsinki 2.0

By Metri, M. In: Strategic Culture Foundation. April 15, 2022

All in all, Biden Administration has been using the political, social, and ethnic contradictions inside Ukraine and the war itself to achieve many of his geopolitical objectives; one of them is keeping the secular western interdiction in the relations between Berlin-Moscow.

HAPSc Policy Briefs Series

The paper seeks to analyze Vladimir Putin’s securitization of the West in his speech at a military parade in Moscow’s Red Square on the 9th of May 2022. Thereby, the article employs political discourse analysis and Copenhagen School’s securitization theory to show how Putin uses speech acts to transform the West into an existential threat and justify the adoption of extraordinary measures, such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, the research refers to Richard Sakwa’s concepts of “cold peace” and “neo-revisionism” to make sense of the emergence of such discourse. By using humiliation narratives and evoking patriotic images, Putin exacerbates a sense of victimhood and historical right in the Russian audience that emphasizes the state’s isolationism and historic role to fight against the “Nazified” West and Ukraine. Putin also promotes an image of Russia’s superiority, supporting cultural and civilizational pluralism and diversity ending the pre-existing Western univ...

EJIL:Talk!, 2022