Are We Uninformed?
Our propaganda bubble insulates us from various facts about the background of the war in Ukraine.
“I’m not sure exactly how much time and energy a pro-diplomacy person should devote to this war’s background—I’d be interested to hear what people think about the extent to which a peace-focused person should focus on this war’s background.”
“The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.”
“In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.”
Putin made the criminal decision to launch this war of aggression—there’s absolutely zero moral or legal justification for Putin’s criminal war of aggression.
And there’s a long history of provocation that led to this war—our propaganda bubble insulates us from these background facts.
But there’s a lot of confusion because people think that provocation somehow means justification—we should all understand that provoking something doesn’t mean that the provoked action is somehow justified, and you can imagine that Bob might provoke Jim into punching Bob in the face and yet that wouldn’t mean that Jim’s action was somehow justified or that Jim somehow isn’t guilty of assault.
The Relevance
I’m focused—regarding the war in Ukraine—on doing whatever I can to spotlight the opportunities for peace:
“We CAN Achieve Peace” (4 June 2022)
I’m not sure exactly how much time and energy a pro-diplomacy person should devote to this war’s background—I’d be interested to hear what people think about the extent to which a peace-focused person should focus on this war’s background.
Couldn’t two people disagree about this war’s background and nevertheless agree about how best—given the current situation—to pursue peace?
But then again, maybe this war’s background is relevant or even very relevant—why would you support diplomacy if you view this war as “unprovoked”, and won’t you be very skeptical about anti-diplomacy propaganda if you know how much deception there’s been regarding this war’s background?
The Background
Regarding this war’s background, Bryce Greene of FAIR has a must-read piece that goes through the history in a really interesting way:
“Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets US Off the Hook” (4 March 2022)
Here’s an excerpt:
The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
And the piece concludes:
None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.
Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.
And Noam Chomsky discusses this war’s background in his 1 March 2022 piece—I took these notes:
“the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples”
“It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.”
“Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years.”
“It might be, for example, that, ‘Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.’”
“The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion.”
“He goes on to conclude that the crisis ‘can be easily resolved by the application of common sense.…By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence—the avowed aim of those who agitated for the “color revolutions”—was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?’”
“Matlock is hardly alone.”
“Much the same conclusions about the underlying issues are reached in the memoirs of CIA head William Burns, another of the few authentic Russia specialists.”
“[Diplomat] George Kennan’s even stronger stand has belatedly been widely quoted, backed as well by former Defense Secretary William Perry, and outside the diplomatic ranks by the noted international relations scholar John Mearsheimer and numerous other figures who could hardly be more mainstream.”
“None of this is obscure.”
“U.S. internal documents, released by WikiLeaks, reveal that Bush II’s reckless offer to Ukraine to join NATO at once elicited sharp warnings from Russia that the expanding military threat could not be tolerated. Understandably.”
“The fact is, to be honest, that we do not know why the decision was made, even whether it was made by Putin alone or by the Russian Security Council in which he plays the leading role.”
“There are, however, some things we do know with fair confidence, including the record reviewed in some detail by those just cited, who have been in high places on the inside of the planning system.”
“In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.”
“There is good reason to believe that this tragedy could have been avoided, until the last minute.”
“As to why Putin launched the criminal aggression right now, we can speculate as we like.”
“But the immediate background is not obscure—evaded but not contested.”
“It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided.”
“Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected.”
“Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful.”
And in his 4 May 2022 piece as well—I took these notes:
“President Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 with an overwhelming mandate for peace. He immediately moved to carry it out, with great courage. He had to confront violent right-wing militias who threatened to kill him if he tried to reach a peaceful settlement along the lines of the Minsk II formula.”
“Historian of Russia Stephen Cohen points out that if Zelenskyy had been backed by the U.S., he could have persisted, perhaps solving the problem with no horrendous invasion.”
“The U.S. refused, preferring its policy of integrating Ukraine within NATO.”
“Washington continued to dismiss Russia’s red lines and the warnings of a host of top-level U.S. diplomats and government advisers as it has been doing since Clinton’s abrogation of Bush’s firm and unambiguous promise to Gorbachev that in return for German reunification within NATO, NATO would not expand one inch beyond Germany.”
“Since the Maidan uprising in 2014, NATO (meaning basically the U.S.) has ‘provided significant support with equipment, with training, 10s of 1000s of Ukrainian soldiers have been trained, and then when we saw the intelligence indicating a highly likely invasion Allies stepped up last autumn and this winter,’ before the invasion, according to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.”
“I’ve already mentioned Washington’s refusal to back newly elected President Zelenskyy when his courageous effort to implement his mandate to pursue peace was blocked by right-wing militias, and the U.S. refused to back him, preferring to continue its policy of integrating Ukraine into NATO, dismissing Russia’s red lines.”
“As we’ve discussed earlier, that commitment was stepped up with the official U.S. policy statement of September 2021 calling for sending more advanced military equipment to Ukraine while continuing ‘our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.’”
“The policy was given further formal status in the November 10 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.”
“The State Department has acknowledged that ‘prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States made no effort to address one of Vladimir Putin’s most often stated top security concerns—the possibility of Ukraine’s membership into NATO.’”
People should understand that for a very, very long time we’ve been “poking the bear in the eye”. And that’s it’s not “left-wing” people who have been talking about the dangers—it’s been people like Jack Matlock, William Burns, George Kennan, William Perry, and John Mearsheimer.
The distinction between provocation and justification is crucial—any society that can’t think clearly enough to separate these two concepts is in deep trouble, since this is a very basic distinction.