Will Our Hawks Get Us All Killed?

Our policy will kill millions of innocent people. And our policy might literally kill you and me and everyone else—this is about self-interest as well as morality.

“Let’s try to be honest about it: Perpetuation of the war is, simply, a program of mass murder throughout much of the Global South.”

“There are discussions in purportedly serious journals about how the U.S. can win a nuclear war with Russia. Such discussions verge on criminal insanity.”

“Let’s at least have the honesty to recognize what we are doing, eyes open.”

See my previous pieces about the war in Ukraine:

• “Is US Policy Killing Ukrainians?” (17 March 2022)

• “Where’s the Diplomacy?” (26 March 2022)

• “Are We in a Propaganda Bubble?” (31 March 2022)

• “What Can WE Affect?” (4 April 2022)

• “‘To the Last Ukrainian’?” (11 April 2022)

• “Thinking About Atrocities” (17 April 2022)

• “Do We Want Peace?” (21 April 2022)

• “What’s the Endgame?” (29 April 2022)

• “What’s Our Official Policy?” (6 May 2022)

• “Are We Involved in Something Depraved?” (11 May 2022)

My 11 May 2022 piece got a lot of feedback—I noticed that a lot of the feedback was from people who didn’t know what I was arguing, so I want to remind everyone to read my previous pieces about the war in Ukraine in order to get up to speed on what I’m arguing and on what I’m not arguing.

Many people think that the idea is that a diplomatic settlement will somehow be imposed on Ukrainians—this isn’t the idea that’s under consideration, so make sure to read my previous pieces about the war in Ukraine in order to get up to speed on what I’m arguing and on what I’m not arguing.

Many people think that it’s somehow wrong to say that you want to end the war and achieve a diplomatic settlement. And I would note three things:

• (1) there’s an ugly phenomenon of wartime hysteria—this phenomenon is as old as the hills and it’s ugly

• (2) it’s true that diplomacy involves giving monsters like Putin things that they want—diplomacy is about ending war and saving lives and preventing destruction

• (3) some hawks will say that anyone who wants diplomacy must somehow be a Russian asset, but Zelensky himself is in favor of diplomacy, so is Zelensky himself somehow a Russian asset?

And I would also make these three important points:

• (A) Zelensky has made various statements in favor of diplomacy—nothing will be “forced” on him or his government

• (B) the Ukrainian people will vote on this—nothing will be “forced” on the Ukrainian people

• (C) we’re blocking this—China is doing nothing, which is awful on their part, but we’re blocking this, so we’re even worse

It’s unfortunate that there’s so much wartime hysteria and wartime propaganda—this is how wars are, but there’s also a history of people standing up against wartime hysteria and wartime propaganda, so we should take inspiration from that history of fighting back against these ugly forces in human society.

There’s an online forum where people post things about Ukraine—take a look at the forum’s “Rule 2”:

Any claim that questions sovereignty and/or legitimacy of the territory of Ukraine including Crimean peninsula will result in an instant and infinite ban.

The darkly comical fact is that Zelensky himself would receive an “instant and infinite ban” based on this rule, since Zelensky himself favors diplomacy. So you can see how silly and crazy and insane things can get during a war.

Sachs’s New Piece

We should understand what we’re in for if we don’t stand up to our hawks—Jeffrey Sachs has a great new piece:

• “Ukraine Needs a Negotiated Peace Because Everyone Will Lose This War of Attrition” (11 May 2022)

See these notes that I took on Sachs’s piece:

• “the sanctions are creating serious economic consequences for the United States and especially Europe”

• “The adverse economic fallout from the war and sanctions regime will also reach dire proportions in dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports.”

• regarding these suffering developing countries, economic “dislocations in these countries will lead to urgent calls worldwide to end the war and sanctions regime”

• “Ukraine continues to suffer grievously in terms of deaths, dislocation, and destruction.”

• “The IMF now forecasts a 35% contraction of Ukraine’s economy in 2022, reflecting the brutal destruction of housing, factories, rail stock, energy storage and transmission capacity, and other vital infrastructure.”

• “Most dangerous of all, as long as the war continues, the risk of nuclear escalation is real.”

• “It is still possible to establish peace in Ukraine based on the parameters that were on the table at the end of March: neutrality, security guarantees, a framework for addressing Crimea and the Donbas, and Russian withdrawal. This remains the only realistic and safe course for Ukraine, Russia, and the world. The world would rally to such an agreement, and, for its own survival and well-being, so should Ukraine.”

We should carefully and thoroughly consider what this war means when it comes to:

• Ukraine

• “dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports”

• nuclear war

• global heating

• other things

We should carefully and thoroughly consider the various horrific effects and we shouldn’t let our hawks downplay or obscure or hide these effects.

Chomsky’s New Interview

Noam Chomsky has an important new interview that everyone should read:

• “Chomsky: To Tackle Climate, Our Morality Must Catch Up With Our Intelligence” (11 May 2022)

Here are my notes:

• “Discussion in the U.S. and Europe focuses on the suffering in Ukraine itself, quite reasonably, while also applauding our policy of accelerating the misery, not so reasonably.”

• “The policy of escalating the war in Ukraine, instead of trying to take steps to end it, has a horrific impact far beyond Ukraine. As widely reported, Ukraine and Russia are major food exporters. The war has cut off food supplies to populations in desperate need, particularly in Africa and Asia.”

• “Let’s try to be honest about it: Perpetuation of the war is, simply, a program of mass murder throughout much of the Global South.”

• “There are discussions in purportedly serious journals about how the U.S. can win a nuclear war with Russia. Such discussions verge on criminal insanity.”

• “US-NATO policies provide many possible scenarios for quick termination of human society. To take just one, Putin has so far refrained from attacking the supply lines sending heavy weapons to Ukraine. It won’t be a great surprise if that restraint ends, bringing Russia and NATO close to direct conflict, with an easy path to tit-for-tat escalation that could well lead to a quick goodbye.”

• “More likely, in fact highly probable, is slower death through poisoning of the planet. The most recent IPCC report made it crystal clear that if there is to be any hope for a livable world, we must stop using fossil fuels right now, proceeding steadily until they are soon eliminated.”

• regarding global heating, the “effect of the ongoing war is to end the far-too-limited initiatives underway, indeed to reverse them and to accelerate the race to suicide”

• “There is, naturally, great joy in the executive offices of the corporations dedicated to destroying human life on Earth. Now they are not only freed from constraints and from the carping of annoying environmentalists, but they are lauded for saving the civilization that they are now encouraged to destroy even more expeditiously.”

• arms producers also have “euphoria about the opportunities offered by the continuing conflict. They are now encouraged to waste scarce resources that are desperately needed for humane and constructive purposes.”

• the arms producers are “raking in taxpayer dollars”

• taxpayer money is also flowing to the arms producers’ “partners in mass destruction, the fossil fuel corporations”

• “The general outlines of a political settlement have long been understood.”

• the US and NATO are undermining the “possibility of a diplomatic settlement, quite openly, and with pride”

• “the war in Ukraine can end with a diplomatic settlement, or with the defeat of one side, either quickly or in prolonged agony. Diplomacy, by definition, is a give-and-take affair. Each side must accept it. It follows that in a diplomatic settlement, Putin must be offered some escape hatch.”

• “The decision to reject diplomacy means that we will engage in an experiment to see whether the irrational mad dog will slink away quietly in total defeat, or whether he will use the means that he certainly has to destroy Ukraine and set the stage for terminal war.”

• “while conducting this grotesque experiment with the lives of Ukrainians, we will ensure that millions starve from the food crisis, we will toy with the possibility of nuclear war, and we will race on enthusiastically to destroying the environment that sustains life”

• “It is of course conceivable that Putin will just surrender, and that he’ll refrain from using the forces at his command. And perhaps we can simply laugh off the prospects of resort to nuclear weapons. Conceivable, but what kind of person would be willing to take that gamble?”

• “The answer is: Western leaders, quite explicitly, along with the political class. That has been obvious for years, even stated officially.”

• “to make sure that all understand, the position was forcefully reiterated in April at the first monthly meeting of the ‘Contact Group,’ which includes NATO and partner countries”

• it’s clear that the meeting’s “assembled dignitaries” are “willing to carry out the experiment with the lives of Ukrainians and the future of life on Earth”

• we’re taking actions—regarding NATO—that guarantee that “no diplomatic settlement can be reached with any Russian government, unless Russia is somehow turned into a U.S. satellite”

• our policy “is very similar to the Afghan model of the 1980s, which is, in fact, now explicitly advocated in high places; by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for example”

• regarding Afghanistan, “U.S. policy apparently delayed the Russian withdrawal that had been contemplated from shortly after the invasion”

• “The chief CIA officer in Islamabad, who ran the operations directly, put the main point simply: The goal was to kill Russian soldiers”

• “Cordovez-Harrison wrote that the U.S. government ‘was divided from the start between “bleeders,” who wanted to keep Soviet forces pinned down in Afghanistan and thus to avenge Vietnam, and “dealers”, who wanted to compel their withdrawal through a combination of diplomacy and military pressure.’ It’s a distinction that shows up very often.”

• “The bleeders usually win, causing immense damage.”

• “Afghanistan is a case in point. In the Carter administration, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was a dealer, who suggested far-reaching compromises that would have almost certainly prevented, or at least sharply curtailed, what was intended to be a limited intervention.”

• “National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was the bleeder, intent on avenging Vietnam, whatever that meant in his confused world view, and killing Russians, something he understood very well, and relished.”

• “Brzezinski prevailed. He convinced Carter to send arms to the opposition that was seeking to overthrow the pro-Russian government, anticipating that the Russians would be drawn into a Vietnam-style quagmire. When it happened, he could barely contain his delight. When asked later whether he had any regrets, he dismissed the question as ridiculous. His success in drawing Russia into the Afghan trap, he claimed, was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet empire and ending the Cold War—mostly nonsense.”

• “who cares if it harmed ‘some agitated Muslims,’ like the million cadavers, putting aside such incidentals as the devastation of Afghanistan, and the rise of radical Islam”

• “The Afghan analogy is being publicly advocated today, and more importantly, is being implemented in policy.”

• “The dealer-bleeder distinction is nothing new in foreign policy circles. A famous example from the early days of the Cold War is the conflict between George Kennan (a dealer) and Paul Nitze (a bleeder), won by Nitze, laying the basis for many years of brutality and near destruction. Cordovez-Harrison explicitly endorse Kennan’s approach, with ample evidence.”

• “An example close to Vance-Brzezinski is the conflict between Secretary of State William Rogers (a dealer) and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger (a bleeder) over Middle East Policy in the Richard Nixon years. Rogers proposed reasonable diplomatic solutions to the Israel-Arab conflict. Kissinger, whose ignorance of the region was monumental, insisted on confrontation, leading to the 1973 war, a close call for Israel with a serious threat of nuclear war.”

• “These conflicts are perennial, almost. Today there are only bleeders in high places.”

• the bleeders “have gone as far as to enact a huge Lend Lease Act for Ukraine, passed almost unanimously”

• we are choosing to “reject out of hand the kind of diplomatic initiatives that in reality ended the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, despite U.S. efforts to impede them”

• we are undertaking an “experiment to see whether integration of Ukraine into NATO, total defeat of Russia in Ukraine, and further moves to ‘weaken Russia,’ will be observed passively by the Russian leadership, or whether they will resort to the means of violence they unquestionably possess to devastate Ukraine and set the stage for possible general war”

• we are “extending the conflict instead of seeking to end it”

• this decision means that “we impose severe costs on Ukrainians, drive millions of people to death by starvation, hurtle the burning planet even more rapidly to the sixth mass extinction, and—if we are lucky—escape terminal war”

• “No problem, the government and political class tell us. The experiment carries no risk because the Russian leadership is sure to accept all of this with equanimity, passing quietly into the ash heap of history.”

• “As for the ‘collateral damage,’ they can join the ranks of Brzezinski’s ‘agitated Muslims.’”

Our hawks aren’t just going to get a lot of Ukrainians killed—our hawks are also going to “drive millions of people to death by starvation” and “hurtle the burning planet even more rapidly to the sixth mass extinction”.

And we all have to choose whether to let the hawks carry forward this insane policy—will we choose passivity or survival?