Are We Propagandized?

There's a ton of anti-diplomacy propaganda.

“The central urgent issue regarding the war in Ukraine is that Washington is blocking peace and that Washington needs to do two things—stop blocking peace and start facilitating peace.”

“And time is running out—this is extremely time-sensitive.”

“So it’s important to try—it’s important not to let anti-diplomacy propaganda distract from the central urgent issue.”

The central urgent issue regarding the war in Ukraine is that Washington is blocking peace and that Washington needs to do two things—stop blocking peace and start facilitating peace. And time is running out—this is extremely time-sensitive.

And there’s a long and detailed record that demonstrates that Washington provoked Putin’s completely unjustified criminal act of aggression—there’s a major propaganda effort to frame this completely unjustified criminal act of aggression as being “unprovoked”.

An institutionally free press would spotlight the central urgent issue and would also spotlight the history of provocation—the US doesn’t have an institutionally free press and so we instead see propaganda from the US media.

I saw this piece about Putin’s grandiose pronouncements:

• “Those pushing Ukraine to concede territory need to listen to Putin’s recent words” (14 June 2022)

Here’s an excerpt:

Even as Russia’s short-term designs for a “victory” in its invasion of Ukraine grow ever more modest amid its military failures, Russian President Vladimir Putin is comparing himself to Peter the Great. The tsar was behind empire-building feats in the 17th and 18th centuries that for the first time made Russia that era’s dominant imperial power in Eastern Europe. He founded Russia’s navy and expanded into the territory of the present-day Baltic states and Sea of Azov while battling Sweden and Turkey.

Peter “did not take anything from them,” Putin said in a speech to Russian entrepreneurs on Thursday about land the tsar conquered from the Swedes. “He returned” this territory to Russia, Putin maintained. “It seems it has also fallen to us to take back and strengthen” territories.

In other words, Putin sees Ukraine, formerly a Soviet Republic with a large Russian-speaking minority, as having been a part of Russia, and thus being Moscow’s to “take back” under its control.

On the one hand, this conception has horrifying implications. By the same rationale, nearly every country at one time occupied and directly administered by Moscow—the Baltic States, Belarus, all the former Soviet republics in Central Asia like Kazakhstan and Armenia and parts of Poland and Romania—could be eligible for “taking back” should Russia deem it necessary to reclaim these “lost territories” too. 

To be sure, Russians and Ukrainians have often been intertwined politically and culturally more closely than peoples in other former Soviet republics. But that doesn’t entitle Russia to negate modern-day Ukrainian statehood any more than the U.S. is entitled to occupy Canada because of its past as a British colony. 

On the other hand, Putin’s naked ambition is now clear to see. Before Russia’s invasion in February, Putin and other nationalists established that they didn’t believe Ukraine should exist as an independent country, including in an essay Putin himself wrote last year.

It’s worth discussing Putin’s statements—it’s not like Putin’s statements aren’t worthy of discussion. But there’s something deeply wrong when you suppress the central urgent issue and then fixate on Putin’s statements—Putin’s statements are important but the overwhelming focus should be on the central urgent issue.

Do Putin’s grandiose pronouncements mean anything? They might mean something—it’s also possible that it’s just bravado for Putin’s domestic audience.

But the crucial and essential point is that there’s no way to know what these grandiose pronouncements mean until the US stops blocking diplomacy and starts to facilitate diplomacy. The US will—once it stops blocking diplomacy and starts to facilitate diplomacy—actually be able to find out just how far Russian demands extend.

So there’s no way to know how extensive Russian demands are until the US abandons rejection of diplomacy and starts to push for diplomacy.

There’s actually one commentator who nailed this point way back on 14 March 2022:

• “Chomsky: Peace Talks in Ukraine ‘Will Get Nowhere’ If US Keeps Refusing to Join” (14 March 2022)

Chomsky comments as follows in the 14 March 2022 piece:

Zelensky’s proposals considerably narrow the gap with Putin’s demands and provide an opportunity to carry forward the diplomatic initiatives that have been undertaken by France and Germany, with limited Chinese support. Negotiations might succeed or might fail. The only way to find out is to try. Of course, negotiations will get nowhere if the U.S. persists in its adamant refusal to join, backed by the virtually united commissariat, and if the press continues to insist that the public remain in the dark by refusing even to report Zelensky’s proposals.

This is the key point:

Negotiations might succeed or might fail. The only way to find out is to try.

So it’s important to try—it’s important not to let anti-diplomacy propaganda distract from the central urgent issue.