“People are confused about the war in Ukraine. And this confusion might cause millions—or even billions—of innocent people to die. This is an extremely serious situation and I don’t know what to do in order to break through the propaganda bubble.”
“We have to break through the propaganda bubble before it’s too late, but how can we achieve that?”
“We could all die because of this war, so let’s hope that we can break through the propaganda bubble before it’s too late and we’re all dead—there’s not much time.”
See my previous piece about the war in Ukraine:
“Will Our Hawks Get Us All Killed?” (12 May 2022)
Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022—the invasion constitutes criminal aggression, and Russia has committed various well-documented war crimes during the war, and this decision on the Kremlin’s part could be the worst crime in human history.
Two points about the war in Ukraine:
this war might kill millions of innocent people
this war might even kill billions of innocent people—including you and me
And two more points about the war in Ukraine:
our whole discourse regarding this war is deeply irrational
our whole discourse regarding this war is deeply sick
People are confused about the war in Ukraine. And this confusion might cause millions—or even billions—of innocent people to die. This is an extremely serious situation and I don’t know what to do in order to break through the propaganda bubble.
We have to break through the propaganda bubble before it’s too late, but how can we achieve that?
I don’t want to write about the problems with our policy later on after everybody’s dead—I want to make a difference right now while people are still alive.
And you and I might be dead if this war continues, so obviously you and I need to make a difference while we’re still alive.
Frustration
On 17 March 2022 I published my first piece about the war in Ukraine. And I feel like I’ve been screaming into the abyss from that point forward—I’ve published so many pieces on this topic, and yet none of these pieces has managed to really make a difference.
It feels terrible to write about an ongoing war and feel like you’re just howling into an abyss—this is such an urgent topic and such a time-sensitive topic and such a desperate situation, so it won’t be possible to make a difference on this after everybody’s dead or even after you and I are dead.
I showed my left-wing friend a draft of this piece and they gave the following feedback:
The society and culture have descended to such a level of irrationality and unwillingness to think that it’s hard to guess what the reaction will be. Maybe just fury.
Might be a good idea to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, implying that everyone who hasn’t understood this is a sociopathic lunatic. Not the best way to induce people to break out of the bubble and start to think.
I just don’t know what to do in order to reach people.
The Basic Points
There are exactly two options about how to proceed:
(1): seek a negotiated settlement that includes—for Putin—some kind of “escape hatch”
(2): reject (1)
The following basic points are essential:
there’s no “(3)”
those who reject (1) are advocating (2)
those who advocate (2) need to think about what they’re actually calling for in terms of what the human consequences of advocating (2) actually are
Let me emphasize what I just wrote:
those who advocate (2) need to think about what they’re actually calling for in terms of what the human consequences of advocating (2) actually are
And everyone needs to understand the following:
(2) is official US policy
(2) is official NATO policy
It’s disturbing that our discourse about this war doesn’t admit basic considerations into it—our discourse about this war reveals something extremely frightening about our society.
Evaluating (2)’s Human Consequences
I would argue that (2) is an absolutely hideous policy—Noam Chomsky calls it a “hideous experiment” and a “grotesque experiment”, and there are good reasons to denounce the policy as “hideous” and as “grotesque”.
(2) means absolutely insane and reckless and monstrous recklessness—as well as absolutely insane and reckless and monstrous psychopathy—when it comes to the following risks:
(A) the risk to Ukraine in terms of bloodshed
(B) the risk to Ukraine in terms of destruction
(C) the risk that Putin will get desperate and obliterate Ukraine
(D) the risk that millions will die in “dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports”
(E) the risk that nuclear war will happen
(F) the risk humanity will fail to decarbonize in time and will self-extinguish—the war locks in global heating in a way that points toward humanity’s suicide
(G) other risks that I haven’t thought of
Everyone who advocates (2) should take 30 minutes to think about (A) and (B) and (C) and (D) and (E) and (F) and (G)—these risks all increase as the war’s duration increases. And let me emphasize how serious these risks are:
(A) the risk to Ukraine in terms of bloodshed
(B) the risk to Ukraine in terms of destruction
(C) the risk that Putin will get desperate and obliterate Ukraine
(D) the risk that millions will die in “dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports”
(E) the risk that nuclear war will happen
(F) the risk humanity will fail to decarbonize in time and will self-extinguish—the war locks in global heating in a way that points toward humanity’s suicide
(G) other risks that I haven’t thought of
It’s hard—given the human consequences—to imagine a more “hideous” and “grotesque” policy than (2).
Making the Decision
As for (1), it’s true that:
there are no guarantees that a settlement will be reached
there are no guarantees that the settlement will remain intact once it’s reached
You can have a good discussion about the hopes and prospects when it comes to reaching—and maintaining—a settlement.
But it’s all quite irrelevant, since (2) is the “hideous experiment”. So I would ask people who dislike (1) to answer this question: “What’s the alternative?”
I asked my left-wing friend about the decision between (1) and (2), and they said:
Nothing to think about. It’s diplomacy or the hideous experiment.
So this seems like a simple decision. And the fact that there’s so much fire and fury about this signals a very scary level of confusion in our society.
Important Points
Here are some important points:
“appeasement” is a scare word that isn’t appropriate or fair or honest in this context—100% of diplomacy involves both sides getting something that they want
there’s a two-way danger when it comes to the settlement being violated—Washington has a terrible record in terms of signing and then rejecting treaties, so it’s not like the only worry regarding keeping a settlement intact is that the Kremlin will violate the settlement
Zelensky is in a dangerous situation, and he adjusts his message based on the audience that he’s talking to and based on the circumstances that he’s facing, and he says a lot of different things
Zelensky has proposed—in quite specific terms—the diplomacy that the US has long been working to undermine and that the US is still working to undermine, but our media marginalizes Zelensky’s proposals and sometimes even literally suppresses Zelensky’s proposals
Zelensky has also made statements in which he opposes diplomacy and calls for more weapons—our media highlights these anti-diplomacy statements
anybody who has a moral bone in their body won’t even care at all what Zelensky has said—the only question that we should care about is the following: “What should we be doing?”
our propaganda system forbids us from asking the following question: “What should we be doing?”
we should ask ourselves the following question: “What should we be doing?”
These are all important points to keep in mind.
Our Sick Society
One of my friends made the following grim comment to me about the war in Ukraine:
The war in Ukraine is a boon to the US, since the war feeds the military–industrial complex and strengthens NATO (just when NATO was seeming obsolete) and doesn’t involve any US body bags coming home, so the US will work to extend the war as long as possible.
So my friend’s points were:
this war “feeds the military–industrial complex”
this war “strengthens NATO (just when NATO was seeming obsolete)”
this war “doesn’t involve any US body bags coming home”
Washington “will work to extend the war as long as possible”
And Chas Freeman made the following observations about the war in Ukraine:
This is essentially cost-free for the United States. As long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us, we are engaged—as Professor Cohen said—in a proxy war. And we’re selling a lot of weapons—that makes arms manufacturers happy. We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about. We’re going against an officially designated enemy—Russia—which makes us feel vindicated. So from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie.
So Freeman’s points—these excellent points were made to a ridiculous and dubious and dangerous media outlet that does all kinds of ridiculous stuff, though the interview in which the points were made was actually a really good interview—are as follows:
“This is essentially cost-free for the United States.”
“As long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us, we are engaged—as Professor Cohen said—in a proxy war.”
“And we’re selling a lot of weapons—that makes arms manufacturers happy.”
“We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about.”
“We’re going against an officially designated enemy—Russia—which makes us feel vindicated.”
“So from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie.”
And we can add to Freeman’s points the following:
the longer the war goes on, the deeper the subordination of Europe to the US
the longer the war goes on, the more complete the self-destruction of “the left” in the US
We could all die because of this war, so let’s hope that we can break through the propaganda bubble before it’s too late and we’re all dead—there’s not much time.
I don't agree with the conclusions of your argument because I don't agree with the premise of your argument and I'm frankly unsure of where to even begin.
Maybe try arguing your points and flushing things out. This reads like someone’s brain storming notes- like it doesn’t even look like a first draft of anything. Sloppy and unconvincing. But thanks to how unoriginal it is I already was convinced that we need to think of a diplomatic means to ending the war.