Nothing wrong with being anti American foreign policy, in my book. But Wagenknecht is blindly ideological in this regard. And nowhere is this more evident than in her insistence that America and NATO have backed Russia into a corner and made Putin's aggression in Ukraine if not justified, at least understandable. But her purpose in establishing The Freedom Movement, and Schwarzer's, is not that they are taking Putin's side against the West, they insist, but simply to get the bombing and the killing to stop. They are convinced neither side can win, and when asked why they are not addressing Putin himself, since everybody agrees he's the aggressor in this fight, Schwarzer answered that since she is a German, her voice is best directed at Germany's Chancellor Scholz, and not Putin. I leave it to you to draw conclusions about her powers of logic.
Back in the 1960s, my friend Linda once knocked on my door. When I answered it, she stomped in, sat down on the couch, wagged her finger in my face and said, "You are wrong. You are dead wrong. You couldn't possibly be more wrong!" I forget the issue, now, sixty years later, but I can still feel the strength of Linda's conviction and the fact that she got my undivided attention. I am now wrestling with the fantasy of sticking my finger in Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht's faces and declaring, "You are wrong. You are dead wrong. You couldn't possibly be more wrong."
I'm speaking about their conviction that negotiations are the proper alternative to more fighting. Putin has made it perfectly clear that he believes Ukraine has no right to exist, that it is nothing more than a backyard corner of Russia, which Russia allowed and which Russia can take away at will. He would eliminate use of the Ukrainian language and ignore the stunning unity and sense of national identity his attack has fostered among Ukrainians, including Russian-speaking ones. His stunning brutality in striking the civilian population of Ukraine and in kidnapping Ukrainian kids and transporting them to Russia and turning them into little Russians is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Which is another phrase meaning cultural genocide. There is nothing over which Ukraine can be expected to negotiate. Negotiation here is a euphemism for surrender. The only question is how much of Ukraine will the Ukrainians be willing to surrender. Does anybody believe, given Putin's declaration, that he will stop with the Crimea and the Donbas? Yes, talk is better than war, but what could the negotiations possibly be based on? Where could they possibly go?
Schwarzer and Wagenknecht can readily tap into the otherwise laudable German inclination to advocate for non-violence. Germany today demonstrates on a daily basis that it has internalized its history. It frames the end of Hitler and Nazism in 1945 not only as the end of a thuggish military period in its history, but more importantly as the beginning of a flourishing period of creativity and cooperation with its neighbors, a chance to become once again a land of Dichter und Denker, poets and thinkers. And, one must add, economic prosperity. Just as Trump has a ready-made audience of Americans whom vulture capitalism has left behind, the organizers of the so-called freedom movement have a ready-made audience of folk who live by the slogan "nie wieder Krieg" - War No More. Both stem from decent impulses but, in the absence of nuanced thinking, both can also become examples of tragic wrong-headedness.
A big problem arises with non-violence when it is taken as an ideology instead of a tool. Peace and justice are two goals civilization cannot do without. The question is how to prioritize them. To "negotiate" with Putin for the sake of peace would mean to surrender any sense of justice for the Ukrainians. The phrase "a just peace" is not an idle one. Peace without justice cannot last. Sooner or later the wronged underdog will rise and fight again. It's also true that "war is hell" and the temptation to sacrifice land to stop the killing is strong. If a one-time swap of land for peace would do it, that is. And that brings us back to whether Putin would even consider the proposition. It would require him to take back his claim that Ukraine is part of Russia, and there is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely possible.
A superb article by Peter Olandt showed up yesterday in the Daily Kos. Olandt makes several excellent points, besides the one I just made, that if you value non-violence over justice you've got your priorities wrong. For non-violence to work certain conditions must apply. You must be dealing with a rational actor with a moral code. Or at least a reason to be persuaded that a non-violent approach can serve their interest. The British brutalized the Indians. But Gandhi's willingness to take a beating (and no small number of killings as well) from the British worked because in the end they could be shamed. Would Jews have fared better than dying by the millions by standing up to the Nazis and saying, "Go ahead and kill me. I'm not complying with your wishes"? It makes no sense to sacrifice yourself if after your killer kills you he will only go on to kill others as well. Absent the assurance your death will deter him, you've simply thrown your life away.
Some battles have to be fought. For years the world stood idly by as Hitler killed Jews. The human race is eternally shamed by the delay in taking him down. Slavery, along with genocide of the indigenous population of North America is a permanent stain on U.S. history. The war to eliminate slavery was a moral necessity.
Laying down arms in front of an aggressor like Putin is a self-indulgence. It feels good to side with would-be peacemakers and preach satyagraha as a morally superior way of life. But suggesting that justice can wait while we appease the beast is, in moral as well as practical terms, human folly.
And let me share a few of the more thoughtful readings I've come across lately:
Why Finland Joining NATO Checkmates Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU&t=1029s
Conversations with Bill Kristol - Francis Fukuyama on the War in Ukraine, Authoritarianism, and Liberal Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS_e_ei9V3o&t=1386s
The Ukraine/Russia conflict in ten minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63_MJNZ3Ce8
A brief history of Ukraine and why Russia wants to control it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDN-DtJMs4Y
takedown of Russell Brand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or9kGzemcps
Timothy Snyder's take on the conflict in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbT6v5GbGJI
Putin cannot surrender - it will mean his death - the view of Dutch historian (U of Rochester) Hein Goemans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_djyPEfkSI
Anne Applebaum on Ukraine (Conversation with Bill Kristol): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIPyFynxWpg
There is no shortage of Ukraine boosters on the internet. Here's one of my favorites: Geography Now
If you understand German, there is this very informative take on the war by German historian Klaus Gestwa. He lays out eight claims made by the advocates of laying down weapons and submitting to the allegedly more powerful Russian invaders. Myths, in other words:
1. NATO threatened Russia and Putin had to defend himself.
2. From a historical perspective, Ukraine belongs to Russia.
3. Nobody can say exactly what Putin wants.
4. Ukraine is not a democratic state, but one led by the West and by oligarchs.
5. From a historical perspective, the Crimea and the Donbas belong to Russia.
6. Whoever delivers weapons extends the war.
7. Russian media lie no more than Western media.
8. Ukraine and the West could have ended the war a long time ago through negotiations.
Photo (of Mariupol) is from a NATO source
No comments:
Post a Comment