Anthony McIntyre ✒ A human catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes.

The burgeoning mass of human misery on the move out of Russian occupied Ukraine is unprecedented since the Second World War. Then too Ukrainians resorted to the trek in order to escape an occupying force. Millions died, as they later would during the Soviet imposed starvation, so well documented by Anne Applebaum in her book Red Famine. 

It was an event, the barbarism of which was so fiendish, that a new term came into vogue by which it would be known, in the same way as Shoa emerged within the cultural lexicon of the moral landscape to describe the Holocaust. The "Holodomor" was a fusion of a brace of Ukrainian words for hunger and extermination. The Ukrainians are no strangers to Moscow directed savagery.

There is an ethical imperative to choose a side in this most unequal of battles. Whatever about the expansionist intent of NATO; notwithstanding the geo-strategic calculations whereby the imperatives of power, influence and security in a perceived hostile international arena inexorably lead to might trumping right; even taking account of the genuine suspicion of Russia that it is being squeezed - at the heel of the hunt, there is one salient and undeniable fact on the ground: the Ukrainians are being attacked in their own country, and the military might of another country, Russia, is attacking them. 

Russian military are dying, and their equipment is being destroyed. Ukrainian military are dying but so too are the country’s civilians, and their non-military buildings are being bombed. There is no exodus of Russian refugees heading for the Polish border. That is the exclusive fate of the Ukrainian population.

Whatever genuine fears might have fed into Russia’s strategic decision-making process, this is an unjust war. It is preposterous to afford the Russians the cover of Albert Camus that their special military operation (Orwellian-speak for unilateral and aggressive war) is as unjustifiable as it is unavoidable. It is wholly unjustifiable because it was wholly avoidable.

For sure, the facts on the ground prior to the Russian invasion would only have been interpreted in one way by the Kremlin. Whether by accident or design, NATO’s expansionism, no matter how benign – for Russia the obvious conclusion is that it was malign - must have looked indistinguishable from an encirclement strategy. 

As Chris Hedges maintains:

establishing a NATO missile base 100 miles from Russia’s border, was foolish and highly irresponsible. It never made geopolitical sense . . . Russia has every right to feel threatened, betrayed, and angry. But to understand is not to condone. The invasion of Ukraine, under post-Nuremberg laws, is a criminal war of aggression.

Even in the worst case scenario from the Russian perspective, what realistically were the prospects for Ukraine joining NATO? Prior to the Russian war, the consensus   would appear to be that it was “unlikely to join NATO quickly, if at all.” The way Patrick Cockburn described matters in January adds to a belief that the West was only ever about sleight of hand: less about reassuring the Ukrainians and more about frightening the Kremlin horses.

The West and its allies insist on keeping open the option of Ukraine joining Nato, a military alliance, while simultaneously declaring that they have no intention of defending Ukraine militarily in the event of a Russian invasion.

While Ukraine is being bombed, the wider target in this geo political power play would appear to be the West, which is being told that it shall not pass. As Jason McCann, no Russian basher, astutely observed in 2018: 

Regardless of British and American anti-Russian propaganda (which is real), the Russian Federation has a strategic interest in controlling the Baltic states. Russian military strategists are looking to weaken the NATO alliance.

And to make that point the citizens of Ukraine are being slaughtered and their civilian infrastructure crippled. 

While holding no brief for Russia, I do not want the West to intervene militarily, preferring de-escalation to escalation. Still, the taunting words of an albeit bellicose Sunday Times writer chime in step with the sinews of my soul. 

There’s something nauseating about how, having watched as Russia did exactly what it had threatened to do, we now sit back and bless those brave Ukrainians for doing the fighting and dying for freedom, while we applaud ourselves for having the fortitude to tolerate higher oil prices, lost Russian buyers for Gucci handbags and a period of uncertainty for Chelsea football club.

And yet, the words of Camus compel me to believe that “peace is the only battle worth waging.”

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Ukraine ✑ The Future Of Chelsea Is At Stake

Anthony McIntyre ✒ A human catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes.

The burgeoning mass of human misery on the move out of Russian occupied Ukraine is unprecedented since the Second World War. Then too Ukrainians resorted to the trek in order to escape an occupying force. Millions died, as they later would during the Soviet imposed starvation, so well documented by Anne Applebaum in her book Red Famine. 

It was an event, the barbarism of which was so fiendish, that a new term came into vogue by which it would be known, in the same way as Shoa emerged within the cultural lexicon of the moral landscape to describe the Holocaust. The "Holodomor" was a fusion of a brace of Ukrainian words for hunger and extermination. The Ukrainians are no strangers to Moscow directed savagery.

There is an ethical imperative to choose a side in this most unequal of battles. Whatever about the expansionist intent of NATO; notwithstanding the geo-strategic calculations whereby the imperatives of power, influence and security in a perceived hostile international arena inexorably lead to might trumping right; even taking account of the genuine suspicion of Russia that it is being squeezed - at the heel of the hunt, there is one salient and undeniable fact on the ground: the Ukrainians are being attacked in their own country, and the military might of another country, Russia, is attacking them. 

Russian military are dying, and their equipment is being destroyed. Ukrainian military are dying but so too are the country’s civilians, and their non-military buildings are being bombed. There is no exodus of Russian refugees heading for the Polish border. That is the exclusive fate of the Ukrainian population.

Whatever genuine fears might have fed into Russia’s strategic decision-making process, this is an unjust war. It is preposterous to afford the Russians the cover of Albert Camus that their special military operation (Orwellian-speak for unilateral and aggressive war) is as unjustifiable as it is unavoidable. It is wholly unjustifiable because it was wholly avoidable.

For sure, the facts on the ground prior to the Russian invasion would only have been interpreted in one way by the Kremlin. Whether by accident or design, NATO’s expansionism, no matter how benign – for Russia the obvious conclusion is that it was malign - must have looked indistinguishable from an encirclement strategy. 

As Chris Hedges maintains:

establishing a NATO missile base 100 miles from Russia’s border, was foolish and highly irresponsible. It never made geopolitical sense . . . Russia has every right to feel threatened, betrayed, and angry. But to understand is not to condone. The invasion of Ukraine, under post-Nuremberg laws, is a criminal war of aggression.

Even in the worst case scenario from the Russian perspective, what realistically were the prospects for Ukraine joining NATO? Prior to the Russian war, the consensus   would appear to be that it was “unlikely to join NATO quickly, if at all.” The way Patrick Cockburn described matters in January adds to a belief that the West was only ever about sleight of hand: less about reassuring the Ukrainians and more about frightening the Kremlin horses.

The West and its allies insist on keeping open the option of Ukraine joining Nato, a military alliance, while simultaneously declaring that they have no intention of defending Ukraine militarily in the event of a Russian invasion.

While Ukraine is being bombed, the wider target in this geo political power play would appear to be the West, which is being told that it shall not pass. As Jason McCann, no Russian basher, astutely observed in 2018: 

Regardless of British and American anti-Russian propaganda (which is real), the Russian Federation has a strategic interest in controlling the Baltic states. Russian military strategists are looking to weaken the NATO alliance.

And to make that point the citizens of Ukraine are being slaughtered and their civilian infrastructure crippled. 

While holding no brief for Russia, I do not want the West to intervene militarily, preferring de-escalation to escalation. Still, the taunting words of an albeit bellicose Sunday Times writer chime in step with the sinews of my soul. 

There’s something nauseating about how, having watched as Russia did exactly what it had threatened to do, we now sit back and bless those brave Ukrainians for doing the fighting and dying for freedom, while we applaud ourselves for having the fortitude to tolerate higher oil prices, lost Russian buyers for Gucci handbags and a period of uncertainty for Chelsea football club.

And yet, the words of Camus compel me to believe that “peace is the only battle worth waging.”

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

5 comments:

  1. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s wife Olena Zelenska has said that Vladimir Putin’s troops are ‘consciously and cynically’ killing children - something they borrowed from the Israelis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Their child and adult civilian killing capacities were honed in Grozny and Aleppo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt but the Israelis honed their own in Gaza and were massacring the innocent prior to Chechnya.

      Delete
  3. And groups like Hamas and the PFLP and fedayeen before them were not? Best to avoid referring to Israel/Palestine when discussing Ukraine as the discussion just descends into a slanging match of whataboutery. Besides where is the evidence that the Russian and Israeli militaries are cooperating although there is certainly an ideological affinity between Putin and the right wing nationalist ideology of Likud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The terrorism of Hamas is miniscule compared to that of the Israeli state.

      It is perfectly legitimate when discussing Ukraine to draw comparison between Israeli war crimes and Russian ones. War criminals are pigs from the same sow. If the bombing of Kiev or Mariupul looks like Gaza, why should it not come up in conversation? Richard Boyd Barrett had the Taoiseach on the ropes in the Dail on this very topic. How can it possibly be said that Putin is a bully and a thug but Netanyahu isn't?

      I don't see anyone suggesting the Russian and Israeli militaries are cooperating.

      Delete