Mais um artigo sobre um dos muitos aspectos da guerra da Rússia contra a Ucrânia.
The Historians Could Still Be Awfully Wrong About the War in Ukraine
I’ve had a few historians dog me about my articles on Ukraine. They insist that history is dispositive. They tell me that what worked for other countries will work for Russia, too. They offer the following prescription with a fair amount of uniformity and confidence: Nothing but a humiliating defeat will cure Russia of its poor behavior.
I will admit that the overwhelming and undisputable defeat of Germany and Japan did bring about some peace in the wake of the Second World War. But we still had wars after that. We had wars in Korea and Vietnam. We had Iraq, twice. Bosnia-Herzegovina, too. We took forever to get out of Afghanistan.
All of them involved the United States in some way or another. America seems to be a common element in wars around the world. That’s one reason I’m not convinced that the war in Ukraine will end if Russia were to just leave Ukraine.
Some of the historians I’ve encountered seem to think that Russia would fit the same pattern. All we have to do is deliver a humiliating defeat, followed by a big dose of disarmament, and Voila! you have peace.
But I’ve tempered my enthusiasm for war. I don’t believe in the optimists who tell me, “Look, Scott. If you could just get on board and believe what we believe, we could have unity with Ukraine. We need everyone to be on the same page so that we can help Ukraine win this war. Do you want yours with ice or room temperature?”
I’m not sure that Ukraine winning this war will bring peace.
The historians would seem to have history on their side. But those same historians seem quick to discount the uncertainty of human beings. We’re a quirky and unpredictable lot. Yes, there is a lot that can be predicted about us in peace. But in war, not so much.
When people are pressed into a mode of fight or flight, they begin to consider solutions that they would not consider in periods of peace. Historians know what I’m talking about. They know of Winston Churchill’s warning about war:
“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that any one who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events….
“I have always urged fighting wars and other contentions with might and main till overwhelming victory, and then offering the hand of friendship to the vanquished. Thus, I have always been against the Pacifists during the quarrel, and against the Jingoes at its close.” — My Early Life, 1930
Historians will mostly agree with Churchill on war. But in this war, I see absolutely zero sentiments for the part about offering the hand of friendship to Russia if and when the war should end. I have been aghast at all the ill will toward Russia. By the talk I’ve seen of the war around here, there is zero enthusiasm for friendship with Russia after the war. Zero acknowledgment of all of the forces at work against them.
Who bothers to ask the question, “Gosh, if America didn’t continually threaten Russia with nuclear weapons, would Russia even have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, too?”
Sometimes I wonder if Russia would be a different country if the United States had courted Russia the way they did China. They were both communist countries. Each got a different treatment with different outcomes.
China became a massive industrial trading partner. Russia became a fossil fuels giant. One had to build something from nothing. The other could just extract what they had to sell from the ground.
Russia isn’t operating in a vacuum. They are responding to what we do. To say that Russia is entirely at fault for the war they are in now, lets us off the hook. To say that only Putin can end the war by leaving Ukraine lets us off the hook. To say that the only solution is a complete and total humiliation of Russia is dangerous.
That might have worked in the 20th century. But technology has changed. People have changed. The world has grown older if not wiser. Russia has found access to advanced technology despite the sanctions.
Russia also has friends that can help them and support them in its war effort in ways that America or Europe can do little about. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about what Russia has and what it can deliver to the war.
I believe that there is greater certainty in negotiating for peace than in escalating the war. Every time I bring this up, I get the same refrain in reply: once we have defeated Russia, we can talk about negotiations.
If you defeat Russia and disarm it, a power vacuum will be created, and we have no way of knowing who or what will move into the vacuum to restore the power. Human power. Unpredictable human power. You know, like Afghanistan. We came, we fought, and we left Afghanistan with greater suffering than before.
Some people think it’s just Putin’s war. He wants it all back to the way it was in 1991. If only we got rid of Putin…
Eliminating Putin will very likely give rise to passionate and political insurgencies with lots and lots of guns. God knows what they will do if they get their hands on nuclear weapons in Russia.
At least if you start negotiating for peace now, you bring the temperature down. You allow cooler heads to prevail. When negotiations begin, both sides can air their complaints. Both sides can declare what it is that they really want and see if the other side can deliver. At least in negotiations, both sides are talking to each other.
You won’t have that if you escalate the war. And if you annihilate Russia’s army, as some have expressed a desire to do, you don’t really get the full picture in negotiations. If one side has an overwhelming victory, the other side will never be heard for fear of reprisal. Resentments will simmer for generations.
Starting negotiations now, before either side has declared victory, or either side has been completely destroyed, will allow enough room for both sides to air their grievances, and make their desires known. That’s information. That information can lead to greater certainty about future events.
Nothing says commitment better than making a clear statement about what one truly desires. Once we make our desires known, we commit to them. You can’t have that kind of certainty in an escalating war. You won’t get that kind of commitment in a war that could soon widen to engulf Europe.
So go on, tell me how we’re going to escalate the war. Tell me how we’re going to defeat Russia. We’re ten months into it now. All those predictions about how Russia is going to run out of weapons, run out of missiles, run out of men, seem to be off a bit. That’s uncertainty.
Start negotiations now and peace could be a thing by spring.
Write on.
