Tag Archives: war

Call for Xmas Truce in Ukraine as Zelensky Visits D.C. Seeking More Arms & Money

U.S. Faith Leaders Call for Xmas Truce in Ukraine as Zelensky Visits D.C. Seeking More Arms & Money | Democracy Now. Medea Benjamin and Cornel West  

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has wrapped up a one-day visit to Washington, D.C., where he called on the Biden administration and lawmakers to provide more military and financial aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia. This was Zelensky’s first overseas trip in nearly a year, since the war began. Ahead of the trip, over 1,000 faith leaders in the United States called for a Christmas truce in Ukraine. For more on the war and hopes for peace, we speak with CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin, theologian Cornel West and Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler, senior adviser to the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

 

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed a rare joint session of Congress Wednesday night where he called on the Biden administration and lawmakers to provide more military and financial aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Zelensky’s visit to Washington came 300 days after Russia’s invasion on February 24th. It was Zelensky’s first overseas trip since the war began. On Wednesday afternoon, President Biden met with Zelensky at the White House, announcing more military aid for Ukraine, including a Patriot missile defense system.

AMY GOODMAN: Ahead of President Zelensky’s trip to Washington, over a thousand faith leaders in the United States called for a Christmas truce in Ukraine. The signatories included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Bishop William Barber and members of the Russian Orthodox Church. The letter was initiated by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, CodePink and the National Council of Elders. The groups also released this short video featuring some of the signatories.

CHRISTMAS TRUCE SIGNATORIES: As people of faith and conscience believing in the sanctity of all life on this planet, we call for a Christmas truce — for a Christmas truce — for a Christmas truce in Ukraine. In the spirit of the truce that occurred in 1914 during the First World War, we urge our government to take a leadership role in ending the war in Ukraine by calling for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement. We pray they do this before more people are killed and wounded and millions more are displaced from their homes, before the growing crisis in global hunger and poverty worsens, and before the conflict results in a nuclear war that could devastate the world’s ecosystems and annihilate — and annihilate — and annihilate all of God’s — all of God’s — all of God’s creation — creation — creation — creation — creation.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by three guests involved in this call by over a thousand faith leaders for a Christmas truce in Ukraine. The Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler is an adviser to the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Cornel West is an author, activist and professor at Union Theological Seminary. He’s author of numerous books, including Race Matters and Black Prophetic Fire. And Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CodePink, which helped initiate the Christmas truce in Ukraine letter. She’s co-author of the new book, War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict.

Medea, let’s begin with you in Miami, Florida. Talk about the reasoning behind this call, and how both President Biden and President Zelensky, in this rare moment, Zelensky’s first overseas trip since Russia invaded — how they dealt with the issue of negotiation. You’re, though, calling for a truce. And talk about the distinction.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: We feel that this war is not going to be won on the battlefield. This is something that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said. We see that the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who has been so hawkish on this, was asked his greatest fear; he said, “Spinning out of control. If it goes wrong, it could go horribly wrong.” We see us no longer marching towards a nuclear Armageddon with their eyes closed; it’s with our eyes opened. There will not be a military victory. There must be negotiations.

And we don’t want the moral center questioning this war to be coming from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, who are the people now questioning this war. We want it to come from the moral center of this country. That means the faith-based community, who understands that we have to protect all of God’s creations and that our moral obligation is to stop the killing, stop the fighting, stop the war. And that’s why we have called for this Christmas truce.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cornel West, you are a doctor of, a professor of philosophy and Christian practice at Union Theological Seminary. We’re speaking to you in Irvine, California. Talk about why you signed on to this letter and what you think the U.S. should be doing that it’s not doing right now, clearly far and above the major supporter of Ukraine financially, militarily, when it comes to dealing with Russia’s invasion.

CORNEL WEST: Ooh, yeah, I’m sorry I didn’t hear your full question, though, Sister Amy, but that’s all right, though. I think it had something to do with the ways in which I would hope we accent how both the American empire, that set the context for this situation with the expansion of NATO and pushing the gangster Putin with his wounded Russian empire against the wall, and then the wrong, illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of our precious Ukrainian brothers and sisters.

But we have to be willing to have a moral witness that keeps track of the organized greed, of the routinized hatred, of the manipulated fear and the chronic hypocrisy of the wounded Russian empire and the American empire, that is, of course, 800 — has 800 military troops units around the world and doesn’t want to be honest about its own role. We know that if there were missiles in Canada or Mexico or Venezuela or Cuba, the U.S. military would blow them to smithereens. So we have no moral authority when it comes to dealing with the gangster activity of Putin. We have American gangster activity in our military-industrial complex tied to the White House.

 

 

AMY GOODMAN: Medea Benjamin, if you can comment on this? And then talk about the course of this war, and particularly, I mean, front page, The New York Times, “Putin Admits Battle Failures But Fights On” — it was a rare admission yesterday, but saying he’s committed to the long haul — and President Zelensky saying the same thing.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, I think it’s important to understand that Angela Merkel, in her interview, also said, “Why would Putin ever trust the West in peace negotiations?” Basically, using those peace negotiations not to stop the inflow of weapons into Ukraine, but to start pouring them in even more. And so, there is no trust on any side at this point.

But there is a need for negotiations. Both sides have staked out their positions, maximalist positions on each side, Zelensky now saying they want every inch of Donbas and all of Crimea back, and the Russians saying they now control and owned these four regions of Ukraine that they can’t even control on the battlefield. But these are positions for negotiations. But the call for negotiations has to come from Biden. And it is not happening. We see that after he met with Macron, the head of France, Macron said there are legitimate security interests of Russia that have to be taken into account. So that all has to be dealt with at the peace table.

And so, what we are saying with this Christmas truce call is that let’s be realistic with the American people. We keep pouring more money. Now it will be another $45 billion that will be approved by the end of this week. That’s over $100 billion, without a year going by, that could have been used for so many essential needs here in this country, and instead poured into a war that is not winnable on the battlefield. So, we need to be honest about this. And that’s why we have this call for a Christmas truce. That’s why Reverend Barber will be giving a Christmas Eve sermon on the moral imperative of a truce. That’s why we’re having a week of protests, starting January 13th; February 19th, the Libertarian Party and the People’s Party calling for a protest in Washington, D.C.; March 8th, International Women’s Day, an international call of women to say, “Stop this war, and end all wars.” That’s what we need to do.

 

,,,

 

AMY GOODMAN: Medea Benjamin, in your recent book on Ukraine, you wrote, “In May, after the U.K.’s Johnson and U.S.’s Austin delivered their message to Zelensky in April to keep fighting for the long run, the U.S. Congress passed an enormous $40 billion aid package to help Ukraine militarily and economically to fight a long war. Not a single Democrat opposed the bill, including Senator Bernie Sanders and the most progressive House Democrats, although 11 Republican senators and 57 House Republicans voted against it,” you said. There’s also discussion that this moment that President Biden and President Zelensky have seized for Zelensky’s joint session of Congress address is right before the House changes hands to Republicans, because a number of Republicans — not clear if the House speaker will be McCarthy — are demanding that this money and weapons flow stop. How do you feel as a progressive antiwar activist — two things — being allied with far-right Republicans and, secondly, being called by some a Russian apologist?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I feel that if I were in Russia, I would be in jail for protesting this war. I also feel terrible that my congresspeople in the Progressive Caucus were cowed and silenced. I think the 30 who signed on that letter, in their heart of hearts, probably believe that negotiations is the only way. And we have to pressure them more to come out and say that their original stance was right, just as Congressman Ro Khanna stood by that stance on national television and CNN and got tremendous support for it. We in the Peace in Ukraine Coalition have been putting pressure on those 30 congresspeople to come back out and say, “Yes, negotiations is the right thing. Yes, a Christmas truce would be a wonderful thing.” So, it’s our job to put the pressure on our members of Congress, whether they’re Republican or Democrat, to come out with the only rational position right now.

The U.S., unfortunately, and the Biden administration, has been against negotiations, nixed the negotiations that were going on in late March, early April, and told the Ukrainians, basically, “You don’t have to negotiate, because we’re going to keep pouring more weapons in.” This is only helping the weapons companies, who actually were the sponsors of a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., on December 8th, brought to you by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. They are the ones who are getting rich in this. The Ukrainians are suffering. The whole world is suffering from this. And we have to get Congress — all of Congress — to recognize this is not in the best interest of the American people or of the entire world.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to put that same question to Cornel West: where you find yourself on the spectrum, and those that say a negotiated settlement now only serves Vladimir Putin, and Zelensky’s push right now is to not only hold ground, but to, with a Patriot missile system, go on the offensive. He says it’s the only way to win this war.

CORNEL WEST: Well, I mean, I think Sister Medea’s point that you’ve got 14,000 courageous Russian brothers and sisters who were willing to go to jail for seven years in order to have some accountability of the gangster who runs their empire, Russia, we need to have an equivalent antiwar movement in the American empire that’s willing to put pressure on our political elites. Most of our political elites and in Congress suffer from a moral and spiritual bankruptcy, because they can’t say a mumbling word when it comes to what’s really happening on the ground with the heroic struggles in Iran right now. They can’t say a mumbling word about the Palestinian struggles, what’s been going on for the last 50 years. But all of a sudden they’re willing to breakdance and act as if they’re concerned about domination when it comes to Ukraine.

So we want to be consistent. We want to support any people who are dominated, whether they are Dalits in neofascist India, whether they’re landless peasants in Brazil, whether they’re Black people and working people in America, whether they’re workers in the UC, University of California, system. And not a mumbling word from Democrats like the governor, caving. We want moral consistency. That’s what Martin King was calling for. That’s what Dorothy Day was calling for. That’s what Rabbi Heschel was calling for in the ’60s. That’s our legacy. And what that means is, we’re going to cut against all the grains in the name of truth, in the name also, we hope, of justice and even some beauty.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about the split on the left, Professor West. Some on the left have emphasized the history of U.S. hostility to Russia in the region, including pushing NATO expansion. You have people like the CIA Director William Burns, who in the past was fiercely critical of the U.S. pushing to expand NATO. And many say the U.S. now has no right to criticize Russia, which, according to this logic, is defending its sphere of influence. However, others on the left have insisted that imperialism must be opposed in all its ugly forms, whether it’s U.S. imperialism or Russian imperialism against the deeply suffering Ukrainian people. Where do you stand on this?

CORNEL WEST: I stand on the highest moral ground I can gain access to, which is in opposition to imperialism, be it China, be it India, be it America, be it Britain, be it France, be it Russia. Across the board, our anti-imperialism must be consistent. I was thinking of my dear sister Charlene Mitchell, who I had such great respect for. We didn’t always agree, but she was a long-distance runner, and she attempted to be consistent in her critiques of predatory forms of capitalism. And I resonate with that. But we need more Medea Benjamins, we need more Brother Haglers, and we need more Amy Goodmans in the world, let me tell you that.

AMY GOODMAN: But if you can talk more about what should happen in Ukraine right now? I mean, you also have been extremely critical of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: You have millions of Ukrainians fleeing right now. Some say that President Putin wants this to happen because it will turn Europe against Ukraine because they can’t deal with the flow of refugees.

CORNEL WEST: Well, we need to have a truce. That’s the first step. This is a process. This is stage by stage, moment by moment, to have a truce and then to put pressure on both ruling classes, across the board, put pressure on the power elites in both empires, across the board, and then have a moral and spiritual and political galvanizing of the people from below, because if it’s dependent solely on the voices of the power elites, it’s not going to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: How does a truce lead to a ceasefire, Cornel West?

CORNEL WEST: Well, one, it allows us to view the world through the lens of peace rather than war. It allows us to assume that there can be not just major interruptions in the process of war, but maybe those interruptions can become more chronic. And as they become more chronic, we have peaceful ways of dealing with the various forms of death and dogma and domination that are shot through the history of the species. And all we have is actually these utopian projects of trying to create some spaces in which people are not at each other’s throats.

So, that’s what truces do. They provide not just moments, but different lens through which we view the world. I think that’s what Brother Hagler was saying with such eloquence, and that’s what Medea Benjamin has been talking about all her life, or at least her political life. I don’t think she came out of the womb talking that way, but, I mean …

AMY GOODMAN: And if you can address that split, Medea Benjamin, something you have also been dealing with, progressives talking about supporting Ukraine at all costs because of the imperialistic invasion by Russia of Ukraine, and then seeing this war not only as it is but possibly escalating to a global conflagration, or even if it doesn’t lead to nuclear war?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I’ve been going around the country with my colleague Nicolas Davies on a 50-city tour, and we find that audiences come in with very different views. I asked them, “How many of you are confused about this?” And just about everybody raised their hand. We have good discussions, and people leave with a much deeper understanding that this war didn’t just fall from the sky, that there are contexts to understand and that there is not a military victory. And then they go out excited to do something about it. We have entire states that are mobilizing statewide coalitions to put the pressure on their elected officials.

I think this is what happens to us when wars start. In the beginning of the Iraq War, we were also told that we were Saddam Hussein supporters. People will come around to our side as this war drags on and more and more people get killed and we become closer and closer to this nuclear Armageddon that President Biden mentioned. So, I feel confident that we’re are on the right side of history. I hope more people will come over to our side more quickly, join us in the PeaceInUkraine.org coalition.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to leave it there, but, of course, we’ll continue to cover what’s taking place in Ukraine. Medea Benjamin of CodePink, co-author of the new book, War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict; Reverend Graylan Hagler, adviser to the Fellowship of Reconciliation, speaking to us from Washington; and professor Cornel West of the Union Theological Seminary, speaking to us from Irvine, California.

Coming up, we look at the latest documents released by the House January 6th committee, now expected to release its full report on the Capitol insurrection today. Stay with us.”

Ukraine v. Russia – Lawrence Davidson

Ukraine versus Russia: Shrinking Options—An Analysis

(9 August 2022) by Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence [email protected]
Blog:  www.tothepointanalyses.com

 

On 15 June 2022 I posted an essay entitled “Should the Left Support President Biden in Ukraine? In a detailed analysis I concluded the answer is no. In past circumstances it has been easy for the Left to take a stance against obvious unethical U.S. foreign policy. For instance, the invasion of Iraq and the associated draconian sanctions. The Left’s reaction was just about unanimous in its condemnation. And now we have the case of Ukraine and things are different. Much of the Left either supports President Biden’s policies or at least appears conflicted. The present policies of the Russian Republic seem as criminal as those of the U.S. in Iraq. A loud propaganda war has resulted, greatly confusing perceptions.

 

 

Given the current circumstances, I have decided to revisit the Russia-Ukraine struggle, focusing on the many issues appearing in the public debates and ultimately on the shrinking options for both sides. Crying “Peace, peace, where there is no peace” is like running around in circles. It might be that only mutual exhaustion can bring peace.

 

Point One: Recent Historical Context

For those who want to understand the present crisis in context, some awareness of the post-Soviet period is called for. When, by the end of 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the Russian Republic that replaced it showed no signs of wanting to reabsorb its old dependents, including Ukraine. Nor did its leadership exhibit delusions of grandeur by setting its sights on recreating the empire of the czars. Americans have been told that Russian leaders now have both ambitions. Is this the cause of the war in the Ukraine? Or is it as professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, has argued that the Russians were pushed in the direction of war with Ukraine by the expansive policies of their Western neighbors.

Mearsheimer’s argument can be supported by other facts. For instance, there is strong evidence suggesting that the United States and certain of its NATO allies misled the Russians on the question of NATO expansion. Thus, “in the National Security Archive document, “Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow,” dated 9 February 1990, Baker, then secretary of state, tells his Soviet hosts: “NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe.…We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” When assurances are made at this level of government, meeting minutes take on the role of written promises. Also when the minutes are presented logically and clearly, it is difficult for one side or another to make excuses for subsequent acts of betrayal.

In the case of NATO’s spread into what had been Warsaw Pact territory, what looked like betrayal of promises in the eyes of Russia’s leadership was described by Western leaders to their own people using code words and phrases: “the expansion of NATO to countries once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact felt like an obvious and intrinsic part of a … process of freedom and security spreading over the continent.”

As NATO was pushed eastward, Western leaders ignored numerous warnings by Russian officials. For instance, in 2005, Putin told a newly arriving American ambassador, “You Americans need to listen more …you can’t have everything your way anymore. We can have effective relations, but not just on your terms.” They also ignored warnings from their own diplomatic and intelligence experts. Fiona Hill, then national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia for the National Intelligence Council, warned President George W. Bush in 2008 that sponsoring Ukraine and Georgia for NATO membership was dangerous and would provoke the Russians. Bush ignored Hill because “the Bush administration … had little inclination to concede much to a declining power.”

The expansion strategy that ended with NATO’s courting of Ukraine and Western infiltration into that country’s politics left Russian leaders with three choices:Approach the West with the offer of a security treaty that would halt NATO’s eastern expansion and reestablish stable spheres of influence. This the Russians did in December of 2021. The United States and NATO dismissed the offer out of hand.
Allow the territory on Russia’s southwestern border to be taken over by what they believed were hostile powers.
Defend their border by launching a war against Ukraine—a strategy that might have been viewed as necessary from the Russian perspective but was nonetheless illegal under international law.

The topics considered below flow from the fact that Russia chose the third option—the invasion of Ukraine.

Point Two: War Crimes

The invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a series of war crimes by Russian forces against the Ukrainian people. To a lesser degree war crimes may be laid at the feet of Ukrainian forces. Despite historical efforts to outlaw such behavior, this was not unexpected. War enables the brutal and thus war crimes have long accompanied the waging of war—a situation which has been real and present with us since the Athenians wiped out the Melians in 416 BCE. That being the case, the only ethical position to take is that all war crimes, no matter who commits them, must be actively condemned.

Such crimes probably cannot be done away with, but they can be punished. There are now constant calls for punishing Russian soldiers and officials for war crimes. Here again things get depressingly complicated.

The very ubiquity of war crimes makes the present demand for punishment problematic. The United States has been accused of war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It has never been held to account. It would be impossible to avoid the charge of hypocrisy by singling out Russian leaders for crimes similar to those repeatedly committed by American leaders and sometimes the Ukrainians as well. Of course, American propaganda simply ignores the issue of hypocrisy and in so doing reduces war crimes prosecution to a political weapon with no moral efficacy.

Point Three: The Never-Ending Cold War

The Biden administration is still fighting the Cold War. The most evident, and publicly admitted, motive behind supplying offensive as well as defensive arms to Ukraine is to “weaken Russia.” This follows logically from the likely encroachment strategy behind the enlarging of NATO—or, if you prefer, “freedom spreading over a continent,”

If this anachronistic aim of “weakening Russia” is indeed the case, the U.S. administration has no reason to seek a compromise solution to the conflict. Rather it might be motivated to keep the war going despite the possible piece-by-piece destruction of Ukraine as a modern society. This U.S. approach might unknowingly contribute to Russia’s strategic fallback goal. If Russia cannot attain a neutral Ukraine on its southwest border, then it will aim to remove Ukraine as a threat by the country’s near total destruction.

Point Four: The Issue of Agency

It seems self-evident that Ukraine has the right (the agency) to defend itself and self-defense is certainly a morally justifiable position. However, despite the unilateral image presented in the Western media, Ukrainians are divided. There are Russian speaking Ukrainians who see the need to defend themselves against Kiev (Kyiv). However, when the nation as a whole is invaded, the right of a majority to exercise self-defense becomes predominant.

Yet resulting agency often quickly becomes complicated. Ukraine’s ability to defend itself has become tied to allied support. In other words, it is no longer a free agent. This is so because these powerful allies also have agency and their intentions go beyond Ukrainian independence. Indeed, the actions of Ukraine’s principal ally and arms supplier, the United States, has sought to transform Ukraine’s war of defense into a proxy war to destroy as much of Russia Republic as possible. At this point negotiations, and the almost certain concessions these will entail, become obstacles to be put off. The goal now is for this war of defense to drag on. Ipso facto, this also means the continued destruction of Ukrainian society. This predicament is partially hidden by the hard-line, zealous stance of Ukraine’s President Zelensky. However, such a position cannot be maintained forever.

Point Five: Regime Change and Neutrality

It seems likely that if some part of Ukraine is to maintain a sovereign status, that entity will have to accept regime change and neutrality. These are interconnected because it is hard to imagine the present Zelensky government acquiescing to neutrality. Yet this is probably what it will take to end the war and retain some semblance of Ukrainian sovereignty. The Americans should intuitively understand this, for they are experts in engineering regime change. After all, in 2014, Washington helped engineered the overthrow of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych a duly elected pro-Russian president of the Ukraine.There are two ways of thinking about regime change and neutrality for Ukraine: (a) Russia wins or (b) at least some of Ukraine is saved from the Russians, the West and itself. Why from the West and itself?

As noted above, it is certain that the United States and its NATO allies actively interfered in Ukrainian affairs in 2014 to ensure leadership favorable to the West. By doing this, the U.S. made immediately real the Russian’s “existential threat” of hostile encroachment. At the same time, by choosing to side with the West and NATO, Ukrainian politicians like Zelensky were actually undermining their nation’s security. Did they understand this? Probably not. Do they understand the necessity of adopting a neutral posture, even at the cost of their own political careers? Probably not.

Point Six: Sanctions

Sanctions are a favored weapon of the United States and also one that often results in enormous collateral damage. The present sanctions were originally placed on select Russian political and economic leadership as punishment for the invasion of Ukraine. However, once the United States changed its objective to “weakening Russia,” sanctions threatened to become a weapon to damage the entire Russian economy. This same end might rationalize the maintenance of sanctions even after hostilities in Ukraine recede. If Washington begins to conceive of sanctions as more or less permanent (think of Iran), they actually become more or less non-negotiable.

It is probable that the Russians no longer seriously adhere to their maximalist aim of annexing all of Ukraine. Thus, there may be room on the Russian side to agree to a smaller, neutral yet sovereign Ukraine. This may be the price of peace for the Ukrainians. However, at this point, such a compromise is a non-starter for those in Washington and Kiev (Kyiv). Add to this an equally stubborn stand on sanctions, and there is little left for Russian diplomacy to work with.

Conclusion

When NATO began, with American encouragement, to expand into what once was the Soviet sphere of influence, they created  very limited choices for the leaders of the Russian Republic: (1) allow themselves to be encroached upon by a hostile force or (2) defend their southwestern border through war. One may believe the Western leaders when they claim that they did not mean to lay down such severe choices or that their intentions were misinterpreted by Russia. But to believe this, one would also have to accept that American leadership in the post-Soviet period, from the standpoint of international relations, was incompetent. This might well be the case. It would not be the first, and probably not the last, time national leaders, democratically elected or otherwise, proved to be disastrously inept in this way.

The Russians chose the war option with all the consequences described above. And, in so doing, they also left Ukraine and its Western allies with very limited choices: (1) accept a truncated, neutral and disarmed Ukraine with some semblance of sovereignty or (2) have Ukraine destroyed, through a war of attrition. One might argue these are not the only choices, but if anyone tells you a clear-cut Ukrainian victory is possible, they are fooling both you and themselves.

It is revealing that from the American point of view, number two may well be preferable to number one. Remember, the primary American goal is to “weaken Russia.” Within the context of the present war, the best way to do this is to have a prolonged conflict in which the nation of Ukraine becomes, if you will, little more than collateral damage.

So, what do we have here? Both Russia and the United States are betting on a war of attrition. Russia is betting that this will eventually destroy Ukraine’s will to fight and thereby secure its southwestern border. The U.S. is betting that this will destroy the Russian Republic. Right now, no one, not even Kiev (Kyiv) for which a war of attrition is a disaster, is betting on peace.


Lawrence [email protected]
Blog:  www.tothepointanalyses.com

 

What’s Really Going on in Ukraine? Bennis & Grossman Webinar Recording

What’s Really Going on
with the War in  Ukraine?

~ Watch free recording on Youtube Progressive Magazine ~

Grossman Slideshow : https://vimeo.com/707612975
Please share with your friends and networks. 
 
In the midst of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, peace and social justice forces are concerned about how best to pursue peace in the region. The U.S. media has been hopelessly one-sided and does not contribute to our understanding of the history or current situation in Ukraine. To help us form a basis of common understanding on how to bring peace to this troubled region, we are hosting a forum of knowledgeable activists, experts in the region.

Featured speakers:

Zoltán Grossman, who is a longtime observer and writer on Eastern Europe, and is a Member of the Faculty in Geography and Indigenous Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and an activist/ scholar working on issues of ethnic nationhood, militarism, and natural resources.

Phyllis Bennis, who is a Program Director, at the Institute for Policy Studies, with a focus on U.S. Foreign Policy.

Moderator: Norman Stockwell, publisher of The Progressive magazine.


For more information, contact:

[email protected]


Sponsored by

  • Madison Working Group on Peace in Ukraine

  • Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin

  • Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin

  • Madison Area Democratic Socialists of America

  • Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom [Madison]

  • Code Pink

  • Madison Veterans for Peace


 

A webinar hosted by The Progressive magazine

Streamed Tuesday, June 28, 2022 7:00 – 8:30 CDT  

 


Ukraine webinar 2022 PROOF0615

Bennis: Respond to Illegal Invasion With Diplomacy

Entire slideshow Zoltan

 

 

“In the question of Ukraine, in my view, there is no question that this was a provoked war. The US [govt] has been provoking Russia for many years, through NATO and on its own.

[Provoking] in terms of expanding NATO, in terms of bringing weapons right up to the Russian border… and it’s also true that Russia’s response, its militarized response of invasion and occupation of Ukraine was absolutely not inevitable; and in my view, absolutely illegal (as to international law and a whole host of ways.)

Saying that [the attack] was provoked does not mean that it is legitimate.

I think both those things are true.”

Phyllis Bennis

Defuse Nuclear War live stream @3PM CST on Sun 6.12.22

With a focus on the current terrible dangers of nuclear war and the imperative of taking action to reduce them, the Defuse Nuclear War live stream will mark the 40th anniversary of when a million people gathered in Central Park for nuclear disarmament on June 12, 1982.

Live event with a wide range of speakers including…

  • Hanieh Jodat Barnes
  • Medea Benjamin
  • Jerry Brown
  • Leslie Cagan
  • Jeff Daniels
  • Mandy Carter
  • Daniel Ellsberg
  • Emma Claire Foley
  • Khury Petersen-Smith
  • Pastor Michael McBride
  • David Swanson
  • Katrina vanden Heuvel 

 

We will also see the world premiere of a video featuring Daniel Ellsberg on “defusing the threat of nuclear war,” produced by Oscar-nominated director Judith Ehrlich.

 

May this online event will serve as a catalyst for grassroots organizing.

 


Several dozen peace, disarmament and social justice organizations are co-sponsoring this event, which is sponsored by RootsAction.org and the RootsAction Education Fund.

This two-and-a-half-hour event begins at 4pm Eastern / 3pm Central / 2pm Rocky Mountain / 1pm Pacific.