A report from Sy Hersh today suggests that the Russia-Ukraine War may finally be sputtering to a diplomatic conclusion. The senior generals on both sides seem to be the main actors, but who really cares as long as the killing stops and the healing begins?
Conflicts and wars often exhibit a horrifying form of logic. Military hardliners, convinced of their own righteousness, claim that victory will come only on the battlefield when the enemy is totally defeated by force of arms. Armchair warriors at home and abroad glom on to this, cheering for their side and calling for no compromises, no negotiations, just more killing. Think here of “bomb’em back to the stone age” slogans heard in America during the Vietnam War, or expressions of apocalyptic destruction like “make the rubble bounce.”
Call it a total war fixation, the idea that victory can only be achieved by erecting one’s flag on a mountain of skulls. Here, anyone arguing for ceasefires or peace must be an agent or sympathizer for the bad people, in this case a “Putin puppet.”
To armchair warriors, the idea that people might simply prefer peace to war seems unfathomable. This is often true of wars everywhere. Those furthest from danger, those from whom no sacrifice is required or even asked, are those most likely to bray the loudest for more killing and more war. To the warmongers, they are the tough ones, the hardheaded realists, and those who disagree with them are disreputable and weak.
Here in the USA, there’s another element to this: the fact that the U.S. government, in the people’s name, has provided massive amounts of weaponry to Ukraine in a pursuit of decisive victory. Many still favor a Ukrainian fight to the death against Russia, though America in general is showing growing reluctance to pay for it all.
Is Ukraine’s senior general naive in supporting a ceasefire and negotiations? Allegedly, evil Putin will take advantage of any ceasefire to rearm and prepare yet more devastating attacks. Yet this “logic” of war could be applied to any conflict at any time in history. At some point, all wars come to an end.
After almost two years of fighting and hundreds of thousands of casualties, it’s high time to give peace a chance in Ukraine. War, as we can see from current events in Gaza, has no lack of chances to thrive in this world.
Your last sentence must have been cut off. It should read, "War, as we can see from current events in Gaza, has no lack of chances to thrive in this world as long as the US National Security State and its sycophants/allies/vassals (EU, Israel, UK, Australia) continue to insist on maintaining global hegemony and the so-called "rules-based order" at any cost and refuse to accept the transition to a multipolar world based on codified international law, the UN Charter and UN resolutions."
My community is attempting to pass a resolution calling for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. A public hearing was held last night and I attended. Though it's reported that 2/3rds of Americans are for a ceasefire, the pro-Israel turnout last night produced about 80% of the audience and the same percentage of speakers. All of the Israel talking points were presented including the following...
> how dare the committee present such a one-sided resolution
> the resolution is antisemitic
> the committee is illegal
> HAMAS must be destroyed
> there is no sympathy for Israel in the resolution
> as I Jew I am afraid to walk around town
> didn't the committee members see the awful attack against Israelis?
> as a rabbi I want to support Israel
When one person from Jewish Voice for Peace went a tad beyond the 30 seconds allowed per speaker, the pro-Israel cheering section broke into TURN OFF THE MIC!
On the positive side, without exception the troops for Israel were elderly. The obviously young speakers were for the resolution.
My favorite example of pro-Israel tactics came at the beginning of the meeting when, what do you know, the city corporation counsel just happened to call to tell us that the committee was illegal and that if the resolution passed (no vote tonight) and was presented to the city council she would tell the council that it was illegal to pass the resolution. I would be willing to bet that this friendly advice was planned for presentation in advance. This is know as "lawfare" as in legal warfare.
The resolution can be seen at https://cityofevanston.civicweb.net/document/385170/ You be the judge of it.