Is Blocking Diplomacy Ethical?
Regarding the war in Ukraine, there are millions—or even billions—of innocent lives at stake. So it's a race against time to break through the propaganda bubble before it's too late.
“There are self-interested reasons why Washington wants to keep the war in Ukraine going as long as possible—this war is a geopolitical boon for Washington and a financial boon for arms manufacturers and an opportunity to weaken Russia.”
“But it’s simply not ethical to continue to block diplomacy. We’re talking about millions—or even billions—of innocent lives.”
“If, as is likely, the war drags on and supplies from Russia and Ukraine are limited, hundreds of millions more people could fall into poverty. Political unrest will spread, children will be stunted and people will starve.”
“What we see in our society is something quite terrifying—any effort to question the Washington Party Line is met with hysteria and confusion and misrepresentations.”
See my previous pieces about the war in Ukraine:
“Will Our Hawks Get Us All Killed?” (12 May 2022)
“MILLIONS? BILLIONS? IRRATIONAL? SICK?” (16 May 2022)
Everyone should take a look at the point that Anatol Lieven makes at 15:48 in the below video:
Lieven says that we’re “giving massive aid”; that we’re “running immense economic risks” for ourselves and for the world economy; and that there’s an issue of people around the world starving due to the war in Ukraine. Lieven says that these factors mean that we “obviously” have a “moral right to a say in making the peace settlement” and that these factors mean that it’s “not only up to the Ukrainians and Russians”.
The Basic Issue
There are self-interested reasons why Washington wants to keep the war in Ukraine going as long as possible—this war is a geopolitical boon for Washington and a financial boon for arms manufacturers and an opportunity to weaken Russia.
But it’s simply not ethical to continue to block diplomacy. We’re talking about millions—or even billions—of innocent lives.
The Risks
I say “billions” because this war is locking in an amount of global heating that will kill us all. And I say “billions” because this war could lead to nuclear war, which would kill us all.
I say “millions” because this war means rolling the dice regarding the uncertainty as to whether Putin will get desperate and obliterate Ukraine—I assume that millions of Ukrainians could die if that happened, though I’m not sure how many people would be in danger if Putin went berserk.
And regarding “millions”, we’re also talking about starving a lot of people—just took at these pieces:
“Record numbers of people displaced in their own countries in a ‘world falling apart’” (19 May 2022)
“The coming food catastrophe” (19 May 2022)
“World has just ten weeks’ worth of wheat left after Ukraine war” (20 May 2022)
I took these notes on the first 19 May 2022 piece:
“the number of people who fled their homes and sought shelter within their own countries hit a record high of close to 60 million by the end of last year, according to new data”
“‘The world is falling apart, too many countries are falling apart,’ said Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council which set up the IDMC in 1998 to document displaced people whom he said would otherwise be ‘unseen.’”
“‘2021 was, as we documented here, a very bleak year and 2022 (is looking) even worse,’ he said, adding that the war in Ukraine would lead to a new record this year.”
“In total, 59.1 million people were living in displaced conditions at the end of last year compared with 55 million people in 2020, the annual report showed.”
“He said he was ‘nervous’ about the Ukraine crisis diverting aid funds from other locations, saying some countries were using their aid budgets to help Ukrainian refugees.”
“‘That means that it will go down, the money we have for the rest of the world,’ he said.”
“The Ukraine war is also increasing the cost of aid for the displaced because it has driven up food and fuel prices, he said.”
And I took these notes on the second 19 May 2022 piece:
“The war is battering a global food system weakened by covid-19, climate change and an energy shock.”
“Ukraine’s exports of grain and oilseeds have mostly stopped and Russia’s are threatened. Together, the two countries supply 12% of traded calories.”
“Wheat prices, up 53% since the start of the year, jumped a further 6% on May 16th, after India said it would suspend exports because of an alarming heatwave.”
“The widely accepted idea of a cost-of-living crisis does not begin to capture the gravity of what may lie ahead.”
“António Guterres, the UN secretary general, warned on May 18th that the coming months threaten ‘the spectre of a global food shortage’ that could last for years.”
“The high cost of staple foods has already raised the number of people who cannot be sure of getting enough to eat by 440m, to 1.6bn.”
“Nearly 250m are on the brink of famine.”
“If, as is likely, the war drags on and supplies from Russia and Ukraine are limited, hundreds of millions more people could fall into poverty. Political unrest will spread, children will be stunted and people will starve.”
And see this excerpt from the 20 May 2022 piece:
The world has just 10 weeks’ worth of wheat stockpiled after Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted supplies from the “breadbasket of Europe”.
The UN has been warned that global wheat inventories have fallen to their lowest level since 2008 as food supplies are rocked by a “one-in-a-generation occurrence”.
Official government estimates put world wheat inventories at 33pc of annual consumption, but stocks may have slumped to as low as 20pc, according to agricultural data firm Gro Intelligence. It estimates that there are only 10 weeks of global wheat supply left in stockpiles.
So we have a situation where political “unrest will spread” and “children will be stunted” and “people will starve”.
And the inflation—due to the war in Ukraine—might lead to the GOP taking power in the US, so you can add the potential collapse of US democracy to the list of risks associated with blocking diplomacy:
“Will US Democracy Fall?” (22 May 2022)
I wrote the following to my friend:
It’s absolutely insane how many consequences the war in Ukraine actually has; this war is ruining and poisoning Ukraine’s environment, and this war is driving inflation in a way that might put the proto-fascist GOP in power.
And my friend responded:
Also threatening to starve millions of people and end any hope to survive climate destruction.
So the risks go on and on, but I really want to spotlight the risks when it comes to:
potentially stunting children
potentially starving people
the political forces that might be unleashed if you starve people
potentially putting the proto-fascist GOP in power—this war is causing inflation and the inflation helps the GOP
I really don’t think that people who support our policy of blocking diplomacy have thought through what this war actually means in terms of human consequences.
The Totalitarian Atmosphere
The point isn’t that diplomacy is somehow wonderful and magical and perfect—the point is: “What are the human consequences of pursuing the alternative to diplomacy?”
People should easily be able to ask these four simple questions regarding the war in Ukraine:
(1) “What are we doing?”
(2) “What are the human consequences of what we’re doing?”
(3) “Is what we’re doing ethical?”
(4) “What should we be doing?”
This should be kindergarten-level basic stuff—asking these simple questions should be the most basic foundation of any discussion about something like the war in Ukraine.
What we see in our society is something quite terrifying—any effort to question the Washington Party Line is met with hysteria and confusion and misrepresentations.
And there’s a disturbing pattern where people are utterly laser-focused on what the Russians are doing or on what Zelensky’s attitude toward diplomacy is—this is the polar opposite of a sane and rational and ethical discourse, since a sane and rational ethical discourse would be all about the four simple questions that I listed.
We don’t control the Kremlin—what they’re doing isn’t in our control. And we don’t control Zelensky—what he’s doing isn’t in our control. We control only one thing—our own actions.
Nobody even knows what our own actions are. And nobody has any idea about the ethical problems associated with our own actions.
So our discourse is completely broken when it comes to the war in Ukraine—that brokenness is ominous and depressing and scary to witness.
An Excellent Interview
Everyone should check out this excellent interview with Lieven:
“How the War in Ukraine Can Be Ended” (20 May 2022)
I’ll provide some notes on the Lieven interview—it was an excellent interview, though the following clarification from Lieven struck me:
Once again, let me say this very clearly: Explaining where the Russians are coming from does not mean sympathy with this Russian invasion.
The fact that he has to clarify something so obvious—something that should be kindergarten-level common sense—indicates a very serious problem regarding the totalitarian atmosphere that we live within.
Here are my notes on what Lieven said about the prospects for achieving peace and about the need for Washington to change course:
“The initial Russian plan in Ukraine, which was clearly to overthrow the Ukrainian government and try to subjugate the entire country, has been defeated. It has failed utterly. Russia has scaled back its ambitions to either get more territory in eastern Ukraine or get the Ukrainians and the West to recognize Russia’s hold on the territories that it has had since 2014. In other words, the Ukrainians with our backing have already won.”
“And that, I think, does create the possibility for a compromise of peace.”
“Obviously, Russia has to want a peace compromise. But I think given the enormous losses Russia has suffered, that is now actually quite likely.”
“But we and the Ukrainians also have to want it.”
“My own feeling is that we could get that without sacrificing anything more than what Ukraine already lost in 2014.”
“there is no humiliation for America in helping Ukraine to reach a compromise with Russia”
“America, as I say, has already won a tremendous victory. There is tremendous humiliation for Putin, of course, implied in all this.”
“Ukraine did come up with a set of—well, they would have been negotiated—principles. Ukraine’s peace proposals were issued and they’re still there, by the way, the last time I checked, on the Ukrainian presidential website. Very sensible proposals for a peace settlement.”
“They received no public support from America whatsoever.”
“If America’s policy is now proxy warfare against Russia, then that is directly contrary to any hopes of peace.”
“America has to take the lead”
“America is giving huge amounts of aid”
“America is risking global economic recession and public uprisings over food prices in key American client states and allies elsewhere in the world”
“If America is doing all this, of course, it has the right to a say in how to end this war.”
it’s “pure hypocrisy” to say that we need to follow Ukraine’s diplomatic lead
saying that we need to follow Ukraine’s diplomatic lead is “covering up an unwillingness to try to make peace”
So peace isn’t impossible or anything—are we trying our best and doing the right thing?
And here are my notes on what Lieven said about how this war could’ve been avoided in the first place:
“there are different forces in Ukraine”
“Twice now, Zelensky has been ferociously attacked by Ukrainian extreme nationalists, including, of course in the armed forces, precisely for suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace with Russia.”
before the war, Zelensky “said—at least, from what I’ve been told by some of the French—Can you then propose a treaty of neutrality for us and then I will accept this as a basis for negotiation?”
“And the French and the Germans said, No, we can’t propose that. And, of course, it’s also because they were afraid of a clash with Washington. They said, We can’t propose that. But if you propose it, then we might be able to support it.”
“And Zelensky said, I can’t do that, because that would cause ferocious opposition and anger among my ultranationalists at home.”
“So you had a ridiculous situation in which one side was saying, Look, if you propose it, I’ll support it. The other was saying the same thing.”
“In my view, this would have avoided war and both sides wanted it but it was not possible.”
It’s good that Lieven is a voice of reason regarding the war in Ukraine, but I fear that millions—or even billions—of innocent people will die if we can’t break through the propaganda bubble in time.
How can we break through the propaganda bubble on this before it’s too late? How many people will die?