While there is much talk of security guarantees for Ukraine, there is very little, if any, talk of security guarantees for the Russian Federation in The West. I expect that this post will be even less popular than some of my others, but I think this is a very important point which needs discussing if the slaughter in Ukraine is going to end and the confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation does not escalate.
While I will undoubtably be accused of wanting to appease or even reward Putin, I would like to point out that I have equal contempt, not for the individual leaders, but the power structures that are furthering the suffering and slaughter in this conflict.
Perceptions Are Important
We are frequently told that if we show weakness than the Russian Federation will be emboldened to further expand, that the Russian Federation is the aggressor and needs to be punished. However, very similar arguments are put forward by the regime in Moscow – that The West has expanded NATO, has been emboldened by not being punished for the disastrous attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… That if The West is able to coerce Ukraine into its sphere of influence it will be inspired to take similar actions in Georgia, Belarus.. If the Russian Federation is defeated in Ukraine, then NATO will go on to try and further threaten the Russian Federation. That the end goal is to expand Western Style Democracy (i.e. Western dominance) across the world.
While this view is definitely debatable, that is not the point. It is an argument that has persuaded many people in the Russian Federation and many other countries to support, even if tacitly, the invasion of Ukraine.
There is much evidence that can be used to support this view – NATO expansion, the involvement of western powers in the 2014 Maidan events in Ukraine, the withdrawing from the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces, Anti-Ballistic Missile, Open Skies treaties, missile and other military bases being placed near Russian borders…
While this post is not about the details of this evidence (I have covered this more here) it is that many people across the world believe it, most importantly the overwhelming majority of people in the Russian Federation who support the current regime.
Putin Is A Brutal Dictator
Even if Putin is a ‘brutal dictator’, I do not see that as a reasonable argument. We often make agreements with people we do not like. Countries such as the USA and UK have, and still do, deals with many unsavoury regimes. I will not give specific references or examples here but people such as John Pilger2 and Naom Chomsky3. It is important to notes that most of the criticisms of Pilger’s and Chomsky’s are not that various events did not happen, but they were necessary for other strategic aims.
People who call for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon are not necessarily supporters of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, neither have they called for Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders before negotiations can take place.
We only need formal agreements with those we do not trust. I will lend £50 to someone I know and trust, however, if I do not know them or trust them completely then I would want a written agreement.
We Have Done It Before, We Can Do It Again
During the Cold War both sides built up immense nuclear arsenals, although those arsenals are still there they have been massively reduced. Other treaties such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile, Intermediate Nuclear Forces, Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaties also help decrease tensions between East and West.
The policies of containment and détente helped avoid conflict between the superpowers.
This is not to say that these agreements were perfect, or went far enough, however it does show that these agreements are possible between competing superpowers.
In the end, after all the bloodshed, suffering and destruction, the only solution is to sit down and talk. I know that talking is a bit boring and does not produce attention grabbing headline
Supporting People Not Regimes
The interests of the ruling elite are different, and often diametrically opposed, to the general population – even in so-called democratic countries. Various narratives are often given to those populations in order for them to support the interests of the ruling class.
The fear of external threats is often used to unite the people in support of that regime. Unfortunately, this rhetoric and posturing often leads to real conflict in which millions die.
If security agreements were made so that people on all sides did not feel threatened, then it would remove the support conflict.
In the end, it is not going to be the leaders of the various regimes that will bring peace but the demands of the people. Making sure there is guaranteed security for people on both sides would go a long way in making this happen.
- Military Empires: A Visual Guide to Foreign Bases; World Beyond War (https://worldbeyondwar.org/military-empires/) ↩︎
- John Pilger (https://johnpilger.com/) ↩︎
- chomsky.info (https://chomsky.info/) ↩︎
- Status of World Nuclear Forces; Federation of American Scientists (https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/) ↩︎
Leave a Reply