Use Your Words!

Zhelensky has liked to portray himself in the mould of Churchill, but Churchill not only proclaimed that Britain would fight the Nazis on the beaches, but also expressed a hope for “Jaw-jaw, not war-war,” that is the quest for peace through words, rather than resorting to violence. Unfortunately, in Ukraine, there has been little attempt at, and even less success with, talking.

Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to the Russian-Ukrainean conflict is the lack of any nation with power and influence and no involvement in the conflict to step in and encourage both sides to stop fighting and start talking. It’s not that either side has refused to attend talks, although they’ve both sought to make the process as tortuous as possible, but neither has had an incentive to actually reach an agreement when the other might.

When it looked as if Russia might streamroller the country, Ukraine did make some tentative moves towards offering Putin concessions, but, certain he would swiftly win and then be able to take whatever he wanted, Putin wasn’t interested. With the invasion somewhat stalled, Putin has indicated, in his turn, that he might limit his claims, but, of course, with the hope they might be able to reverse the Russian gains, Ukraine is no longer interested in offering concessions. And, so the war continues…

The United Nations, which ought to be the premier body in this role, is, of course, incapable of doing much with Russia’s veto and too many nations that just don’t care. Perhaps with a stronger Secretary General, things might have been different, but probably not. It may be a talking shop,  but precious little comes of the talk itself, leaving it to individual countries to take on the mantle of neutral interlocutor.

The USA is often perceived as the ‘go-to’ power for negotiations, and has certainly injected itself into the talks, but as the key member of NATO, Russia’s primary rival, and Ukraine’s main backer, lacks any credibility in the role. Indeed, the USA played a role in discouraging Ukraine from seeking compromise with Russia in the Donbas down the years of the conflict there, leading to the current situation.

The United Kingdom might have stepped in, but falls into the same trap as America. Germany is another contender, but its dependence upon Russian oil has meant it has tried to keep as uninvolved as it can and would be unlikely to satisfy either party.

France had a chance here to renew its international role and certainly made a stab at it, but achieved nothing as its preferred approach seemed more about grandstanding and protecting EU interests than actually trying to resolve the crisis.

The only other countries that could fill the role are China and India, neither of which are likely keen to do so. Although India’s dependence on Russian oil and China’s desire for an ally against America doubtless have influenced their largely keeping quiet, probably the biggest reason for neither country to get involved, either as active supporters of Russia or honest brokers for peace, is the awkward fact that, whilst pro-Russian, they cannot actively support Russia’s support of the breakaway Donbas republics because it would run counter to their own territorial claims – India in Kashmir and China in Taiwan. The latter, in particular, is unworkable – China could hardly back a major power enforcing the indepence of breakaway republics, whilst complaining about the USA’s suppport for the breakaway republic of Taiwan. That might have made them a good broker, but it also complicates the situation for them, with any statement being seen in light of their own territorial claims, so that you can see why they chose to stay out of it.

Without a viable broker, able to exert pressure on both sides to come to the negotiating table, whilst also being perceived as honest and fair in overseeing the talks, any chance of peace looks to be a long way off. Of course, many might consider the possibility of talks a terrible thing, believing that Ukraine should fight on until ultimate victory. Except that, no matter what the pundits like to say, it is far from certain Ukraine can reverse Russia’s gains, and extending the conflict for potentially months or even years means many more lives disrupted and destroyed, as well as the continuing ripples through the world economy and the potential for the war to spread and cause more death and destruction.

Mad, Bad and Dangerous?

If we are to take one thing away from Western media coverage of Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, it’s that Vladimir Putin is mad, bad and dangerous, a threat not just to one nation, but the entire world. Not that such a portrayal necessarily means much – it’s been standard practice since World War II to portray every enemy leader as a dangerous lunatic in the mould of Adolf Hitler. A portrayal that has, more often than not, led the West to blunder into awful messes as they ignore the nuance and complexities of the situations in which they interfere.

So, is Putin really mad, bad and dangerous? It’s easiest to take those in reverse order.

Dangerous

Well, this one is easy: Anyone leading a nation that has a large conventional military and a nuclear arsenal is definitely dangerous. Although it has to be considered that large militaries and nuclear arsenals are also possessed by China and America, and there are several more nuclear-equipped states, so Putin isn’t unique in that regard, although, compared to the regimes the West more usually prefers to come into direct confrontation with, Russia really is dangerous and ought to be approached with caution.

Bad

Is Putin bad? Well, that is a subjective question, but I think anyone who engages in warfare is certainly veering towards the unpleasant, even when justified. But, every negative quality that can be attributed to Putin can also be attributed to Western leaders…

Warmonger? Most American Presidents fit the mould. Using censorship?

The banning of RT and other Russian media means the UK and EU have engaged in censorship, too.

Propaganda? Ukraine and its allies have happily claimed Russia shelled a Holocaust memorial and a nuclear power station, when neither event actually happened as described; that’s propaganda.

Corruption? Let’s not look too closely at the hidden bank accounts and dodgy funding of Western politicians, eh?

So, bad, but not exceptionally so.

Mad

Right, here comes the big question: Is Putin mad?

If we believe Western media and politicians, then the answer is surely YES! Putin is depicted as suddenly ordering the invasion of Ukraine on a whim, of giving rambling speeches (President Biden, anyone?), and talking nonsense about Nazis. Apparently, nothing he does is rational. Ergo, he’s mad.

Except it’s not true. The invasion of Ukraine was no sudden action – the conflict in eastern Ukraine’s Donbass region has been going on for eight years and Putin’s decision to escalate was preceded by repeated warnings that he would feel forced to act if Ukraine continued to ignore its responsibilities under the Minsk Agreement and push for NATO and EU membership.

And, going back, the problems in Donbass derive from the overthrow of the elected government with NATO connivance, whilst the wider Ukraine-Russia tensions derive from NATO’s refusal to stick to an agreement not to expand eastwards. NATO might want to argue that it was justified in its actions, but it cannot claim that Putin’s reaction do not derive from them. His response was entirely predictable.

That Putin might not trust NATO and its supporters in Ukraine and might be fearful of being ever more surrounded by NATO countries is not some paranoid delusion, but a reasonable reaction to a disregard for democracy and agreements on the part of the West. And, that his following through on his threats after his concerns and demands were just ignored, especially when his concerns over Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership could easily have been kicked into the long grass, as neither is likely to happen for several years, allowing for some defusing of tensions without actually caving into his demands, is concerning.

Even his talk of deNazification, construed as either wild lies or signs of madness, has a basis in reality. Ukraine does have a problem with neo-Nazis, or, at least, parts of it do. Neo-Nazis were active in the anti-Russian revolution of 2014 and a neo-Nazi militia, the Azov Battalion, actually became part of the Ukrainian military and played a large role in the fighting in the Donbass. A leading neo-Nazi figure has even been an advisor for the Ukrainian army and neo-Nazis have tried to make Kyiv a centre of white supremacism. We have even seen plentiful examples of racist discrimination during the chaos of civilians fleeing the war.

None of this is secret nor disputed and Putin’s characterisation of Ukraine as a ‘Nazi state’ makes sense. The real question is whether he has, mistakenly or deliberately, overstated the case (although there are many who would contend he hasn’t). The Jerusalem Post suggests that the Azov Battalion has significantly tackled neo-Nazism since being incorporated into the military and suggests that the fact it played such a large role in the fighting in Donbass might have skewed Russian perceptions of the Ukrainian military. Of course, the racism evident during the evacuation makes this questionable. But, either way, it’s not the case that Putin is talking nonsense.

Given that Putin has shown a willingness to talk and his concerns and demands have been rational, and his actions have been preceded by warnings of what would happen if things proceeded as they were, I would say that Putin isn’t mad, or no more than justifiably paranoid, and that his actions were rational based on his beliefs and intentions and should have been easily foreseen by the West.

So what went wrong?

That is the important question. Why did neither Ukraine nor NATO understand, even in the face of repeated NATO warnings, that a Russian invasion might actually happen?

Given the way in which the Ukrainian people interviewed by Western media have acted baffled by the absence of NATO assistance, it is clear that they believed that NATO had pledged to protect them. Was this just a lie or wishful thinking on behalf of the Ukrainian government? Given the way President Zelansky keeps demanding that NATO act, despite NATO being a defensive organisation of which Ukraine is not a member, makes me wonder if NATO, or elements within it, misled him into thinking NATO would back Ukraine should war break out: This would certainly explain why Ukraine ignored its commitments and upped the tensions with Russia in the lead-up to the invasion.

But, why didn’t NATO foresee the invasion? After all, it kept stating that a Russian invasion was likely. How could the intelligence services predict it and the politicians be surprised? Can anyone be that stupid? After all, Putin told them! Had spending years portraying Putin as a lunatic blinded them to the words he was speaking? Or, was the portrayal always deliberate, so that NATO could continue to antagonise Russia, yet portray itself as innocent? After all, despite all the claims that NATO isn’t deliberately encircling Russia or that it closing on its borders could conceivably be interpreted as a threat, we saw the British Defence Secretary in Latvia boasting that NATO’s forces were on the Russian border… Yep, that’s one way to reduce tensions over NATO forces being on Russia’s doorstep.

It’s hard to say for sure, but it frequently seems as if NATO is trying to up the tension with Russia. In the context of Ukraine, this is terrible, as it essentially means that innocent Ukrainians are dying for NATO’s ambitions and vanity, without NATO actually endangering itself. But, with the potential for the conflict to spread with one misstep, continuing to treat Putin as a lunatic who cannot be predicted could lead to disaster if NATO misses, or affects to miss, a warning.

Conclusion

Bad and dangerous? Yes. Mad? No. And, failing to grasp that risks disaster. Ironically, though, if NATO can wean itself from its obsession with tarring every enemy as insane, the fact that Putin is rational and pragmatic means that an agreement to restore peace is a real possibility. He doesn’t want to go to war with NATO and plunge the world into nuclear war – but, there’s a real risk that NATO might push him into a corner from which he sees no other way out.