As a reminder, following the Russian
invasion of Ukraine on February 24, corporate media called the ensuing conflict
“Putin’s war.” Although the U.S. and Europe could have avoided the invasion by
calling a halt to NATO expansion and negotiating seriously with the Russians
about key security issues. And the U.S. arms had been pouring into Ukraine
since the overthrow of the pro-Russian government there in 2014, and Ukraine
was using them to kill pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region. But Putin
was still held responsible for “crossing the line” into physical violence.
Even so, that is not the end of the
discussion. Far from it. At first one could have called this Putin’s war,
but it has always been Joe Biden’s war.
Consider what has happened so far. The
advance of Russian troops toward Kyiv was stalled by a combination of factors,
including Russian feeble military engagement, Ukrainian determination, and
Western weaponry. Russias’ intention was never to take Kiev but to lay the
groundwork for a more serious campaign in Ukraine’s south and east, but the
advance faltered with heavy losses in men and equipment.
Russia repositioned and strengthened its
forces for an attack on the Donbass, long the arena for a violent civil
conflict between pro-Russian and pro-Nato Ukrainians, and the coastal provinces
connecting that region with Crimea. The Zelensky regime requested additional
arms from the United States, and Biden granted it an additional $800 million in
advanced weaponry, in addition to the billions previously sent to Kyiv and a
continuation of direct military support in the form of intelligence, training,
and planning.
The Russians pressed their campaign in
the south and east, but Pentagon and State Department officials, elated by their
Ukrainian proxis successes, were now promising even larger shipments of heavy
weapons to Kyiv and talking about a Ukrainian “victory” after several more
months of fighting. The U.S. secretaries of State and Defense traveled to
Ukraine and returned promising to provide the Zelensky regime with all the
military and economic support it might need in order to “defeat” Russia and to
“weaken” that nation to the point that it would be “unable to threaten others
militarily”, leaving the world at the mercy of the USA’s army.
Clearly, Washington’ war goals had
escalated. What, exactly, are these goals? Since the administration has
kept them vague, nobody really knows, but one can easily imagine “maximalist”
and “minimalist” positions. At the max, the U.S. hopes that Russia will
be unable to secure control of the Donbass region and the Azov coast and will
take so much punishment that it will be forced to admit failure and withdraw its
forces, quite likely jeopardizing Vladimir Putin’s hold on power. Minimally,
the Biden regime wants Ukraine to do well enough in the field to fight the
Russians to a draw and force them to negotiate on terms highly favorable to
Kyiv.
Whichever scenario is followed,
Washington’s perspective has clearly become both more triumphalist and more
hardened. Biden and his team now want the war to continue for several
months at least, and to assure this result have agreed to supply Ukraine with a
larger quantity of sophisticated weapons than have ever been supplied by the
United States to any other ally. At the same time, the President and his
honchos are less inclined to take seriously the possibility of a major
escalation of violence or resort to cyberwarfare by the Russians, and more
inclined to give Zelensky everything he wants short of a no-fly zone.
(Apparently, even a no-fly zone is now being discussed sub rosa.)
What could possibly justify playing such
a high-risk game of chicken? Philosophically, the argument seems to be that
since Putin “began the war unjustly”, the Ukrainians and their sponsors have
the right to intensify and prolong it in order to defeat and punish the
aggressors. The assumption is that the defenders in an unjust war situation
have no duty to negotiate with aggressors – not even if their own actions (and
inactions) set the stage for the aggression, and not even if their refusal to
negotiate risks starting a nuclear war.
Thus, if the Russians should respond to
the latest U.S. escalation by – God forbid! – using hypersonic missiles or
weapons of mass destruction, their actions would be considered an extension of
Putin’s original sin rather than a response to a direct threat to their own
security and welfare.
This illustrates the fallacy of defining
a war as just or unjust purely on the basis of who began it. No – a war is unjust not only if it is wrongly started, but also
if it is wrongly escalated and prolonged. The origins of a conflict alone do not
determine its ethical or unethical content. If Putin now offered a
ceasefire in order to negotiate the status of the Donbass republics and to
assert other Russian needs and interests, would the U.S. and Ukraine be
justified in refusing to talk in order to punish or “weaken” him? Of
course not! In a world of competitive nations, “weakening” Russia as some
Bidenites propose really means eliminating that nation as a significant player
in international politics. If this is the nature of the threat now posed
by the new U.S. war aims, Russians will naturally consider raising the ante by
making new threats of their own.
What accounts for this scheme in
American policy? One cannot avoid thinking that motives more complex and
ambitious the defense of Ukrainian independence are involved. Calling the
Russians’ nuclear bluff (if it is a bluff) and demonstrating the “supreme power
of U.S. weaponry” secures American hegemony in all of Europe, demonstrates that
the American Empire still has teeth, and prepares the ground for a U.S. “pivot”
toward confrontation with China. The happiest campers in the
American/European camp are the militarists, the military-industrial companies,
and the politicians hungering for a new Cold – or, for that matter, Hot – war.
Whatever the relevant motives may be, it
seems clear that “Putin’s War” is more like a Biden’s War. The Russian leader
wrongfully fell in Nato’s trap and the American leader wrongfully provoked and prolongs
the war.
The war’s current victims are “only” Ukrainians
and Russians; its potential victims, if this escalation continues to spiral,
are the peoples of Europe and the world.
Surely, It is time for the USA & NATO to back off and both parties concerned – Ukraine and Russia – to step back from the precipice, to sit together with UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres, and to talk sensibly about their legitimate needs and interests.
A Reminder
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário