Continued from 12 May 2023ㅡThat Russia is an aggressor and NATO expansion was clearly in the making of the conflict, we think is not controversial. That NATO is “projecting U.S. power” is also uncontroversial. With information during the war being highly opaque to the public and foggy to leaders, it looks as if Ukrainians exhibiting courage in the face of aggression had wanted peace talks early on, as did the Russians, but then simply talks broke down, as if overnight. One cannot know for sure, but during that interval, Prime Minister Boris Johnson from the UK visited Ukraine and it seems as if U.S. influence prevented a resolution that could have been achieved early on.
Overall, it should be considered that Russia is nuclear armed and says it does not want NATO on its border. An easy thought experiment can show the case. If a military alliance of Latin American states, or the OAS, were to place personnel, conventional hardware, and nuclear weapons in Nuevo Leon and other northern Mexican states, how concerned would U.S. citizens be? Or, worse, what if China were in the role of supplying armaments and training to such a Latin American military alliance? The case is too surreal; in fact, unreal, to imagine.
Tensions in Eurasia risked not only a new Cold War, but an escalating hot war that could move into a tactical exchange and lead to thermonuclear war. We have arrived at this point now; the specter has emerged. It is important to remind ourselves that tactical nuclear weapons are 5x-10x more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which was 15 kilotons. Further, the position of escalation and military triumphalism is a position that might work with swords and lances, until some side “wins” or everyone gives up in exhaustion, but such is fantasy today. It’s not a movie serious or video game. The intoxication with triumphalism is already a problem in itself but combining such intoxication with moral rightness and nuclear confrontation, may be terminal. “We” will be right, and of course, “we” will all be dead.
The information is not esoteric. In January 2022, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists “called out Ukraine as a potential flashpoint in an increasingly tense international security landscape.” Ukraine might be the flashpoint that “ignites” global catastrophe beyond anything known before, even without the use of nuclear weapons." The Bulletin says that for many years, “we and others have warned that the most likely way nuclear weapons might be used is through an unwanted or unintended escalation from a conventional conflict. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought this nightmare scenario to life, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening to elevate nuclear alert levels and even first use of nuclear weapons if NATO steps in to help Ukraine. This is what 100 seconds to midnight looks like”.
A year later, in January 2023, the Bulletin moved the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been . There was dissent. Some media, celebrity intellectuals, both in the mainstream and on social media, essentially mocked, “It’s like meteorologists solemnly and humorlessly reporting the results of Groundhog Day”. There was also other dissent. A famous pediatrician and a weapon’s inspector, both who have dedicated their lives to nuclear disarmament, said that the time was more like “25 seconds” or even “one second” to midnight. Not included, virtually no reports in the mainstream or social media, is the potential irreversible damage to the biosphere in this region that was one of the first cultural sites where large human organization began.
Some observations we have heard directly:
· It is said, by many smart, highly educated people, that had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons then they would not be in this situation. This is a correct statement if we are to mean that Ukraine, and maybe all of us, would not exist today. The first fallacy is that Ukraine or any state is a presupposition over a given territory in and of itself; and second, practically as indicated, Ukraine would not have formed had the nuclear weapons remained. Had Ukrainians taken such a bellicose position, without European, U.S. and Russian negotiations, terminal war would almost certainly have ensued.
· It is said that Ukrainians are defending themselves. Another correct statement, we think. That is if we mean the situation is horrific for an invaded people, and that we do not conflate a Ukraine farmer on the ancient steppes defending his/her family with the movement of geopolitical tectonic “plates” of nuclear-armed superpowers that might try to fight and win a nuclear war.
· It is said that Russia is the aggressor and will “devour Ukraine” and therefore there is no negotiation possible. It may be that Russia wants to devour Ukraine and even keep going into Europe; not an unusual perspective for a state. However, the media was wrong about the Russian philosopher, Alexander Dugin, as being Putin’s brain. Putin is perfectly capable of thinking for himself; Dugin’s philosophy is of the spirit, not the brain. The problem with the above, as far as military strategy goes, is that it is fantasy.
There is tremendous power in Europe and the U.S. military with its more than 800 bases around the planet and completely encircling Russia and Asia. With that kind of power, de-escalation and negotiation can certainly be brought about in the current war; such power should not be used for further escalation. Nevertheless, influencers in society have been obsessed with Putin’s psychology rather than how to prevent further death and destruction in Ukraine.
· It is said that the post-WWII “rules-based order prevents invasions of other countries." Another true statement, we think; if we mean there was supposed to be the United Nations. But if not, then it was a U.S. hegemonic global order - with US (and NATO) invasions and interference all over the globe particularly in Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. We can invade, even preemptively; though we recognize it does not take much to figure out that others must suffer our violence and that they might not like it very much. Nevertheless, get out of the way, we the civilized are coming in.
In the real world, simple-mindedness in such matters is dangerous to societies and to the natural environment. We think a global democratic movement could move Eurasia towards resolution of the war beginning with a ceasefire. Such a movement would force governments to follow the law, where there could be multilateral negotiations for a neutral Ukraine, and with an autonomous region in eastern Ukraine according to a U.N. enforced Minsk-like agreement involving all countries around the border. Austria is an example for guidance. At first, the countries in the region would contribute forces to a U.N. coalition for security under international law, which is practice already long codified. The global community would carry its normal obligations and responsibilities of working through the United Nations to help with resolution as well.
This democratic process, would provide stability for a deliberative and action-oriented outcome that would work further on the myriad aspects and intricacies, realizing that current terror, suffering, and death, have been added to past suffering going far back in time in the region. Russia would be able to move out of military aggression to diplomacy and perhaps even to provide infrastructure and loans to the Russian people living in a more autonomous area in Ukraine; while also facing the consequences of international law. Further, and while at it, such a movement of global solidarity could significantly reduce nuclear weapons, which are in the background of any conflict today.
There is no need to say that such a scenario would not be easy; however, it is necessary to say that such is not without precedent, and also not without potential for innovation.
Alexander Krabbe, M.D. is a pulmonary specialist and senior physician at Havelhöhe Community Hospital in Berlin. He is a peace activist engaging with a broad range of citizens in Europe to discuss critical issues in international relations. He was a citizen journalist at OhmyNews International in Seoul from 2004 to 2009 and is currently a research fellow at the Asia Institute (Berlin/Seoul).
Layne Hartsell, MSc., Ph.D. is a research professor at the Asia Institute in Tokyo and Berlin. Former research professor at Sungkyunkwan University and the Advanced Institute for Nanotechnology and Sookmyung Women’s University in South Korea; at the Center for Science, Technology, and Society at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand; and researcher at the University of Virginia College of Medicine. He is also currently serving as a board member at the Korea IT Times.
