Ted Grimsrud—September 4, 2023
I have a number of friends who are quite sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people in the face of the terrible war that is going on in the eastern part of that nation. Along with that sympathy seems to exist a corresponding sympathy with the American military support for Ukraine and the account of this war given by US/NATO sources. I share the first sympathy but not the second.
As has famously been said, the “fog of war” renders clear understanding of the elements of any war very difficult—generally, this “fog” extends to the various stories that are told about the factors that led to a war and the factors that could resolve it. I certainly don’t claim to be able to pierce all these levels of fog in relation to the Ukraine war, but as I struggle to make what sense of the situation as I can, I have some reflections to offer. (I want to thank one of my doubly sympathetic friends, Howard Pepper, for some stimulating comments he made in response to my recent blog post on Philip Short’s biography of Vladimir Putin. What follows is meant not so much as an argument with Howard as simply a chance to spell out my position without an attempt to offer evidence or justifications.)
The Russian choice for war is morally wrong
As a pacifist, I *do* condemn Russia’s military engagement with Ukraine as immoral. I think it is wrong in principle, and I think in practice it does not and will not serve the wellbeing of Russia and its people. At the same time, I condemn as immoral Ukraine and its US/NATO backers for provoking that engagement and fueling it with weaponry and training. I condemn US/NATO for building up Ukraine’s military for many years and for helping to exacerbate the longstanding tensions among the Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine. It is quite clear already that pursuing a military response to Russia is not and cannot hope to serve the wellbeing of Ukraine and its people. I don’t think one has to be a pacifist to express this condemnation on both sides, but certainly no pacifist should fail to do so.
I condemn the Russians for not working harder to find ways through diplomacy to address the concerns that led them to take the step of greatly accelerating the militarization of the conflict with Ukraine that had been simmering since at least 2014. Probably even more, though, I condemn the US/NATO and their allies in the Ukrainian leadership for not respecting what seem to be legitimate security fears on the Russians’ part in relation to the eastward expansion of NATO nor being willing to converse with Russia’s expressed concerns and expressed willingness to negotiate in the months leading up the Russia’s February 2022 invasion.
It is imaginable that American leaders could want war
Many Americans (and, presumably Europeans) have expressed disbelief that their leaders would be so callous as to actually want a major war to happen just in order to supposedly weaken Russia. However, I *do* find this completely believable. For one thing, President Biden (and, presumably, a number of others in his administration) supported just this kind of behavior back during the Carter administration as a means to get the Soviet Union entangled in Afghanistan. That effort, of course, was successful and helped contribute to the weakening and ultimate demise of the Soviet empire (of course, it also directly contributed to the rise of al Qaeda and the Taliban, the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, and the ultimate disaster of the US entanglement in Afghanistan). There were US Empire leaders who even openly voiced at the beginning of the Russia/Ukraine war that they were hoping for a repeat of what happened in the late-1970s.
The idea that Biden wouldn’t want a war also flies in the face of his strong support as chair of the Senate Arms Services Committee of the American invasion of Iraq. That cynical and devasting war underscored the template of America’s ongoing willingness to see war as an acceptable and even necessary policy choice.
It is also the case that from February 2022 down to the present, many American leaders in Biden’s administration and in Congress have regularly reiterated that they believe American engagement in this war is a good and profitable endeavor—precisely for the purpose of weakening our Russian enemy. This is just one example, from Sen. Mitch McConnell in December 2022: “The most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests. Helping equip our friends in Eastern Europe to win this war is also a direct investment in reducing Vladimir Putin’s future capabilities to menace America, threaten our allies, and contest our core interests.”
An added “benefit” (and plausible factor in the US/NATO motivation for provoking Russia) has been the much-desired (by NATO) step of Finland and Sweden leaving their long-time status as neutral nations formally to join NATO and the also much-desired step of Germany committing to greatly increasing its military spending (something Finland and Sweden are now also committed to doing). It is no coincidence that a major beneficiary of this increased spending will be American arms manufacturers.
Russia’s invasion is not morally justifiable, but it is understandable
Again, I would *not* say that Russia’s invasion was morally justifiable. But I do think that it is at least somewhat understandable. Based in part from my reading of Philip Short’s Putin biography (though also on a great deal of other reading and simple observation of these past 40+ years), I do think Russia had a lot to fear from the actions and stated intentions of US/NATO. This goes back to the decision right after World War II by American leaders to end the alliance with the Soviet Union that had defeated Nazi Germany and to consider the Soviets our main enemy in the world, entering into a competitive dynamic that led to the Cold War. When the Soviet Union ended and Soviet leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev made crucial moves to restore a friendly relationship, key American leaders turned away and insisted on continuing to see Russia as the enemy. Perhaps the most concrete expression of this insistence was the decision to rebuff Russian interests in joining NATO and instead expanding NATO (still defined in terms of enmity with Russia) ever further to the East. Especially in light of the devasting history, for Russia, of invasions from the West (something Putin’s direct family had suffered dearly from), it is understandable the fears of further aggression would remain (especially in light of the rebuffs of Russia’s attempts to build bridges).
The answer to “war crimes” is not more war
Surely, this current war has been destructive of Ukrainian life—and I do not doubt that the Russians are guilty of what could be called “war crimes”—such as targeting civilians, torture, mistreatment of prisoners of war, and numerous other actions. However, I would suggest, war itself is a crime and “war crimes” are an inevitable part of war. Ukraine likely is doing the same kinds of things. It is disingenuous to accept the validity of war in the actual world we live in and condemn only one side for “war crimes.” The answer to “war crimes” is not more war. It is not morally valid to commit a crime in order to punish a crime. Crucially for American observers, to support a response to “war crimes” by pouring ever more weapons of war into the conflict only insures ever more “war crimes” on all sides. America’s involvement is ensuring that the conflict will extend only further into the future—the future for the Ukrainian people seems increasingly grim. The insistence on using “war crimes” as a justification for more war does probably further what seems like the actual agenda of America’s leaders: further weakening Russia, strengthening NATO, and (most of all) enriching the war profiteers.
Comparing Russia’s invasion to when the US invaded Iraq
From the start, I have viewed the conflict in Ukraine through the lens of the US war on Iraq 20 years ago. How does Russia’s invasion compare with the US invasion of Iraq (remembering, again, that Biden’s support was crucial for that ill-fated invasion)?
- In Iraq, the US invaded a country halfway around the world; in Ukraine, Russia invaded a country with which is shares an extensive border.
- Iraq provably posed no threat to the US (as we learned, it was not building weapons of mass destruction); Ukraine was posing what seems to many to be a direct threat to Russia by seeking to join NATO—a move that, among other dangers to Russia, quite likely could lead to offensive nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
- The invasion of Iraq began with the notorious practice of “shock and awe” that in about a month led to the surrender of Baghdad, much infrastructure damage, and many casualties. In the following months, as the Iraqi insurgency thwarted the American occupation, much more death and destruction, many “war crimes,” and a general breakdown of Iraqi society followed. The Russian invasion was not as intense in the beginning, but in time the devastation has continued to grow. It is difficult, though, to see Russia’s invasion as more problematic than America’s in Iraq.
In light of the US war on Iraq, our country has no moral standing to condemn Russia. What we did seems even more corrupt. Whatever is needed to put an end to Russian aggression and restore Ukraine on the road to healing, it is very unlikely it could ever come from the US/NATO alliance. That alliance has from the start and continues to oppose the only possible route toward healing—diplomacy and negotiations that bring the belligerents together in order to find a mutually acceptable outcome. That opposition underscores how counterproductive the US/NATO involvement is.
Thinking Pacifism 
I am also a pacifist, although I have difficulty identifying with the Western Church at this time. I am also a veteran, 1977-1991 USMC Infantry.
I agree that Russia’s invasion is morally wrong, and I also believe that the U.S. and NATO share part of the blame. But to isolate the USSR/Russia -v- NATO to just post 1945 is to ignore Czarist Russian history.
Granted Truman is largely responsible for the Russia/China estrangement from the west, as he was for the American War in Vietnam. His blind and venomous hatred of “Communism” created both situations.
Czarist Russia, which was the model for Stalin as well as Putin, had a love/ hate relation with the west. The reatoric about “western decadance” of Putin’s Russia and Czarist Russia is remarkably similar.
There is a greater depth to this imperial madness that recent history presents.
Thanks, Ted.
Once again, no hint of any Ukrainian voices anywhere within your analysis. When in fact the war is actually happening in their country and to them, not Russians, and certainly not Americans.
I’m not picking on you specifically. But it is a flaw I see in the writings of most western left-of-center commentators on this war. The erasure of any Ukrainian voices on the subject of the Ukrainian war by western liberals is remarkable. Especially given how easy they are to find in this day and age of global internet.
“I condemn the US/NATO and their allies in the Ukrainian leadership for not respecting what seem to be legitimate security fears on the Russians’ part in relation to the eastward expansion of NATO nor being willing to converse with Russia’s expressed concerns and expressed willingness to negotiate in the months leading up the Russia’s February 2022 invasion.”
…seem to be… The reasoning behind this is disconnected from reality. It shows ideology straining to override evidence to the contrary.
No, it’s not ideology. Nations are obligated under international law to try to resolve disputes peaceably.
Exactly.
NATO, unlike Russia, is not some imperialistic empire expanding eastward through military conquest. It is an alliance of independent nations which the independent nations of eastern Europe chose willingly to join on their own accord instead of the Russian version called the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
The fact that this war is occurring in the non-NATO state of Ukraine instead of the NATO states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (which also have Russian-speaking populations) shows how correct they were in joining NATO. And why both Sweden and Finland have chosen to join NATO as well.
Putin seems wedded to the notion that he and Russia can, by military force, determine the political and economic future of the independent state of Ukraine, or determine whether or not Ukraine as a nation and Ukrainians as a culture even deserve to exist. The sooner he is disabused of that notion the sooner we will see peace in that region of the world. And it should be up to Ukrainians and not Americans or Russians to determine their future.
Russia in 2023 is basically the economic and population equivalent of Mexico. A more corrupt version of Mexico with worse food but nuclear weapons. The rest of the world is watching to see if raw military aggression will be rewarded or punished. Those are the two policy options facing the west. And one needs to ask which choice will lead to a more peaceful future in Europe and beyond. Do we want to live in a world in which wars of aggression are rewarded and therefore, encouraged? Or a world in which they are punished, and therefore discouraged.
The other issue I never see discussed from a pacifist perspective is nuclear proliferation.
In this war we have a nuclear state invading a smaller non-nuclear state. We had the same thing in Iraq of course. But if Russia gets its way and manages to annex large portions of Ukraine through military conquest. And that result is endorsed by those who want to freeze the conflict and reward Russian aggression by ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia in the name of peace. What message does that send to all the other smaller non-nuclear states around the world that border an aggressive nuclear state from Taiwan to Kazakhstan to Iran? It tells them that international security agreements are worthless and that the only sure way to defend themselves against larger aggressors is through nuclear weapons. Would Russia have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was still a nuclear state with hundreds of ICBMs like it was prior to 1991? I seriously doubt it.
So we must ask ourselves if we will have a safer world if the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is abandoned and 25 new nations gain nuclear weapons. that is the road we are going down if Russia is appeased in Ukraine for the sake of “peace” And it is absolutely and positively the result if Russia choses to launch even one single nuclear weapon at Ukraine. Or tries to use nuclear blackmail against Ukraine.
Often I prefer to focus on an area in which to take action, although I’m quite aware of the need for good analysis before doing that. This time, based on tomorrow’s (Monday) anniversary of 9-11, it will tie into the issue of our wayward, often disastrous war ventures, and not specifically about the Russian invasion and war crimes in Ukraine.
As to analysis… mostly years back, but some again as recently as today, I’ve spent many hours looking at evidences for what actually happened on 9-11, 2001, particularly to bring down the Twin Towers and especially the 47-story steel frame skyscraper, “Building 7”, in the late afternoon of 9-11. The evidence is overwhelming that all 3 towers came down via controlled demolition… of pre-placed massive and extremely high temperature explosives and/or incendiary devices.
The documentation (and even scientific level proof) of this is extensive but I will cite just one particular scholar whose work on this is expansive and spans over a decade… David Ray Griffin. Griffin was (sadly passed in Nov., 2022) primarily a philosopher/theologian for decades at Claremont School of Theology. In one of his many books on 9-11, he addresses a Christian response to the disaster and its aftermath. It is the aftermath, as the main propellant for some of our subsequent wars, that ties to issues of foreign policy and the (potential) reduction of wars and international conflicts.
The book I’ve been just recently reading is “9-11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation”, ed. by Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, 2018. I believe it was his last one on the subject. It is highly recommended, covering most of the key aspects of what happened that day, showing MANY places and ways the “official” accounts cannot be trusted and show efforts at deliberate lies, ignoring, and coverup in many instances.
Griffin had been in alliance with at least one professional group for many years which had been careful to stick to their “lane”, to prove things scientifically, about particularly the fall of the 3 towers, and not become speculative… Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911Truth.org). I followed their work for some years, and also took some direct action, in minor ways, to further their cause of education and persuasion. A while back they were (and may still be) collaborating with a group I don’t know as much about, but which seems quite professional and not into any extremes of “conspiracy theory”…. Rather, legal actions to bring out truth and accountability: The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. URL: https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/joining-forces-for-9-11-truth-and-justice/
I mention them particularly because Sunday, 9-10, at 2 PM, Eastern, they have a free Zoom conference call for anyone interested, on their recent and current work and a variety of topics, with accomplished international guests (the work is an international effort, as is proper). I know that’s super short notice (just learned of it myself), but it will be available via their YouTube channel later as well.
Indeed, it’s getting late to yet bring accountability to the planners and executers of 9-11, and those who actively participated in cover-up efforts (in which I’d include basically all of major media), but not TOO late. If court cases can bring to justice even a few people responsible on one or more levels, I believe it will greatly raise consciousness in Americans and others, may help unravel some of the terrible spin-offs, and may even serve to show future perpetrators of similar actions that they may not be able to escape justice.
As follow-up to my comment (above, or prior), I did hear almost 2 hours of the somewhat-longer conference by Richard Gage and The Lawyers’ Committee for 9-11 Inquiry. I do recommend viewing a replay of it (said to be posted, currently or later, on the Committee’s YouTube site). But rather than comment further on what it covered, I will go to a closely related subject, based on things I’ve heard on radio and TV today, in commemoration of 9-11-2001.
I’ve been reminded anew of the extremely powerful effect of the visible-combined-with-symbolic aspects of 9-11 in both immediate and longer-term responses. I’ve heard testimonies (as I have previously) of men and women who enlisted, some almost immediately, in the military because of emotions stirred by the events, apart from any real consideration of how and why the events happened. I admit to being among those who immediately assumed the perpetrators were foreign terrorists exclusively. It was a few years before I paid any attention to possibilities that the official explanations were fundamentally false and carefully orchestrated.
Thousands (at least, perhaps many millions) have followed the trajectory I have, coming to at least be open to, if not have concluded, that the official explanations of the various related events of the day (and days following, particularly with the Anthrax spread and deaths from it) cannot be correct. They cannot be even close.
Despite the high percentage of such Americans (and others) now, the major media continues to support only the “official” conspiracy theory… which has been shown to be preposterous…. that 19 foreign terrorists executed all the triggering actions for the tragedies of the day. That’s mainly that they hijacked four airliners and crashed two of them into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and had aimed the fourth for either the Capitol or the White House, although it crashed on the way. The post-crash results of the crashes into the Twin Towers, the collapse of both of them plus Building 7 of the WTC, were natural results of the impact plus the fires created (indirectly so for Building 7).
It is beyond me to explain all the dynamics involved in keeping alive an explanation that is incredibly counter-factual and inconsistent, but I know it has a lot to do with the way it immediately tapped into existing fears and misperceptions about the nature and extent of Islamic extremism. That was combined with a natural but often exaggerated level of patriotism in the face of what seemed an existential threat.
People questioning, mostly not until many months and then years later, the powerful mythology around how 9-11 had happened and why, was intolerable. It was thus vigorously condemned by virtually all elected officials and almost all the media as intolerable disloyalty or mistrust of our institutions. Well, indeed, such questioning, let alone beliefs in some form of “inside job”, creates an additional set of problems. But one has to ask if those problems are indeed worse than the results we’ve now seen in not only unjustified wars and their horrific effects, but a massive re-setting of our mindsets, aspects of our daily lives, and our national use of monetary and human resources (measured in trillions, not just billions), etc.
So if we hope to understand US foreign (and related domestic) policy decently at all, we’ll HAVE to take into account what needs to be much more fully understood…. who all was behind 9-11, why they did it and how they both pulled it off and then kept if from being effectively exposed. I say “effectively” in the sense of people being brought to justice and the populace broadly coming to face the highly unsettling reality of how 9-11 could have been perpetrated at least primarily by Americans in places of power, even if aided, perhaps, by foreign terrorists or co-conspirators.
For a really well researched report on what happened focusing on what led up to it rather than the details of the day, see https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2023/09/10/the-lies-of-9-11/
Thanks, Bill. I’ll try to get to that.
Thank you very much Ted, excellent article.
Ukraine should start negotiating for a cease fire. They went to war following bad advice. The advisors are paying for it, but not as much as Ukraine is.
When you say they “went to war”, what are you referring to? Opposing separatists/Russian supporters and/or invaders in 2014 or fighting back upon massive invasion, missiles, etc. in Feb., 2022?
If you mean not resisting the 2022 invasion, how do you think that would have affected the majority of Ukrainians? (And would it mean they would then have effectively become Russians, ruled from Moscow, however we might evaluate that?)
Applies to both. There were opportunities to teach agreement with Russia but rejected. With protections for the Ukrainians in West Ukraine.
reach agreement. not teach
I don’t know that I’ll use minimal discretionary time to dig into that history for the specifics of what you say. So, for argument’s sake, if we allow that they got and followed bad advice, would you say it justifies Russia in both the 2022 and 2014 military actions, including the (eventual) annexation of Crimea beginning in 2014? Of course, the 2022 bombardment and invasion was massively violent… and would have been even if Russia succeeded within 3 days or so. Was that justifiable on any basis, even if it was because of knowingly bad negotiation and then bad advise by Western powers advising Ukraine?
Your question is based on the premise that some wars are justifiable. Don’t think that is true.
I hope this comment appears in the proper position (the system is out of reply options)…
Ernest, actually I don’t hold that as a premise as far as any wars being justifiable. And I don’t think my wording requires that. At any rate, in my view, sometimes use of force in defending oneself can be justifiable (stickier with nation states or other groupings, indeed). However that’s viewed, if Russia “started” the military action, or the main aspect of it, or clearly was the escalator of it, would they not be relatively MORE responsible for the ill effects?
And should not Russia and Ukraine both be pushed to negotiate seriously toward peace without any preconditions? (I don’t know where that actually stands at the moment. But a cease-fire while negotiations are pursued would certainly seem a doable and valuable thing.)
All that about relative responsibility may or may not be a “practical issue” now, although action in the UN or the Int’l Criminal Court might make it so. So “responsibility” may yet be a germane issue. But it’s not something I’m equipped or intending to persuade about. I merely feel it’s an educational disservice to couch things in such a way that (at least to my interpretation) a given writer is seeming to indicate a war would not have been initiated if only the US, NATO (and/or Ukraine) had said or done x, y, or z, or NOT said or done x, y, or z.
I agree that self defense is justifiable.
I dob’t know all the facts to teach a firm conclusion. I have read a lot of the history and of the events that lead up to the invasion. There are many reports which may or nay not be true that Ukraine and Russia had agreed on a treaty which would have avoided the invasion, but that Ukraine was pressured by NATO and the United States to reject the treaty. That decision made the invasion inevitable. All the information is available and can be researched. I think it would be a disservice not to try to find out all the facts and history that led up to the war. It is not as simple as that Russia decided to invade without reason or justification from their viewpoint.
Truly heartbreaking to hear and see the pain and heartache that war causes for millions. I hope you can find comfort like I have with the following passage….Isaiah 14:7 The whole earth now rests, free of disturbance. People cry out for joy.) That passage gives hope and assurance that the unrest that is taking place in Russia, Gaza, Ukraine, all over the world will soon end.