Tuesday, May 10, 2022

And pass the ammunition...

I’ve become a bit less obsessive about following events in Ukraine, as well as reading up on tons of stuff on Ukrainian history, geography, language and social analysis. Ukraine no longer occupies half my days. It’s probably down to a quarter. And because what’s going on there is much more salient in Germany and other European countries, I listen to German debate and analysis more than I do to what is available from American sources. So forgive me if I rant for a bit about something which most of you who are not Germany-centered are likely taking to heart.

What bugs the hell out of me is the debate in Germany over whether it should increase its support for Ukraine to include heavy weapons. There are a noticeable number of  “Putin-Versteher,” German for “people who understand Putin,” their way of saying “Putin supporters,” but they are a small minority.  By and large the overwhelming majority of Germans find Putin’s brutality in Ukraine something they’re willing to label as fascism, something to be resisted through sanctions, and in concert with other EU nations - up to, but not including, boots on the ground, the active intervention of NATO forces.

That means there is no conflict over whether what Putin is up to is acceptable; it is not. But there’s where the consensus stops. There is a huge debate raging over just how far Germany should go to support Ukraine in its war effort, in large part because the de-nazification process (or, if you find that concept too problematic, reflection on the misery Germany inflicted on the world) has been so successful that a critical mass of them see themselves as pacifists, and form their opinions on whether to wage war accordingly.

Just as Biden did the right thing, just in a clumsy way, in getting the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has done the right thing in promising heavy weapons support for Ukraine, but took his time getting there and bungled the way he communicated his thinking to the German public. And that has led to the issue I want to talk about today in this blog entry. Two groups of folk have expressed very forcefully how they feel about this decision.

Radically opposed to the delivery of heavy weapons is Alice Schwarzer, the editor of the feminist magazine, Emma, and others who have written a letter to Scholz praising his early instincts to be “reflective” rather than “active” about getting involved in the actual war - I believe the number of signatories is now up to a couple thousand or more.

And that letter inspired another group of folk who take issue with these “hold-back” folks. Pardon that awkward adjective, but they hate being labeled as pacifists. They insist they are not against war and they are strongly critical of Putin’s aggression; it’s just that they see providing heavy weapons as spiraling up a war against a guy with atomic weapons the height of folly.

Andrij Melnyk, the very outspoken Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, immediately took to twitter: “Hi, Alice Schwarzer,” he wrote. “Your call for Ukraine to capitulate means that your celebrated feminism is only a facade, a fake. [Not to take] (t)he wholesale rape of women by soldiers is pure cynicism. Nobody with a healthy sense of reason should buy your shabby Emma.” Told you he was outspoken.

I’ve tried to stay objective in this debate. I know I’m only getting information about the war through sources which I largely select myself, anti-Putin sources almost exclusively, and I have taken pacifist positions myself for the most part ever since the Vietnam War days when I first discovered just how badly the U.S. warmongers are inclined to lead us astray - a conviction only even more firmly held since the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz war criminals took us into Iraq. You can color me pacifist in strong bold colors.

So yes, I’m with Alice Schwarzer and company - not war, but negotiations are the way to go.

But who, I wonder, do these anti-weapons people think they are talking to. Putin? Not bloody likely. Putin has made it plain he never retreats. Not in Grozny, not in Georgia, not in Aleppo, not in the Dombass, not in the Crimea. Not once has he come to the negotiating table when he was getting away with his wars of annihilation. Not once. Why, I want to know, are the anti-weapons people writing a letter to Olaf Scholz? He has influence only with Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians. He has none with Putin. Thinking you are asking both sides to lay down their weapons is a grand illusion; you are only addressing the victims, not the attackers.

In fact, if you listen to their reasoning, it’s clear they are addressing the victims. “Don’t risk nuclear war,” they are saying. But only one side has threatened nuclear war and that is Putin. So what you are saying, in effect, is what the Ukrainian ambassador has put his finger on. You are telling the Ukrainians to surrender to the bully, because if you don’t we will all die.

And that’s what it comes down to. Who do you believe? Do you believe that surrendering Ukraine, allowing the Russians to have their way and wipe it off the map (this is not rhetorical excess; Putin put his goals into that very explicit language) is the only alternative to certain death? Or do you believe that it is precisely and only by standing up to Putin - with bigger and stronger weapons - that we can get him to the negotiating table? Negotiation is the goal for both sides, we're only arguing about how best to get there.

Heavy weapons, and maximum sanctions. Not tomorrow; today. That's the side of the fence I’ve come down on.

There are many other parts of this argument to be considered here - like when will we stop dictating to Ukraine how they need to behave? Do you really want to urge them to surrender to an army that issues condoms to its soldiers because they know rape will certainly follow the overtaking of Ukrainian cities, that bombs maternity hospitals and schools because they understand that state terrorism is the most effective tool at their disposal? And do you really not understand that what you are telling the Ukrainians is that if they want to fight to the last man, woman, teenager and pensioner, you wish them the best of luck but they've got to do it with sticks and stones?

But these are not the main issues. The main issue is what is more likely to bring Putin to the negotiating table: demonstrating that you are afraid of his nuclear weapons or showing solidarity in standing up to him with all the power you’ve got to kill the invading Russian soldiers and destroy Russian arms?

I’m greatly encouraged by the news stories indicating that the Ukrainians are quick learners, that they are learning to use these modern weapons faster than skeptics thought possible.

Slava Ukraini!

Get this war over with as quickly as possible. Save not just Ukrainian lives. Save Russian lives, too. Save lives period.

Stand up to Putin’s bullying in the language he understands - the only language he understands.




 

 


No comments: