End this war

From END Info 31 DOWNLOAD

Tom Unterrainer

It is not possible to fully capture the appalling dimensions of a war by listing grim statistics. If such statistics made a difference to those who control the armies and institutions that wage war, then millions slaughtered in wars, large and small, over past decades would not have perished. The disturbing truth is that human life means little to war-makers. A different class of mathematical object matters much more to such people: the calculus of power.

We are the opposite of war-makers. We aim for peace and strive to remove all roadblocks to it. So in reckoning with the calamities produced by President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, we absorb the grim statistics. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that between 4am on the morning of 24 February 2022 and midnight on 12 April 2022, civilian casualties totalled: “485 men, 313 women, 31 girls, and 54 boys, as well as 72 children and 977 adults whose sex is yet unknown”. 1,932 corpses. In addition, many thousands of men, women, boys, girls and children have suffered injuries of which many will be life-changing. The report comments:

Most of the civilian casualties recorded were caused by the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, and missile and air strikes.

Added to the civilian deaths are those of the ‘combatants’. According to Ukrainian, Russian and NATO estimates, thousands on each side have died in the fighting. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces include conscript fighters.

To these numbers should be added all those who have died in the eight years of fighting in Eastern Ukraine/Donbass between 2014-2022 and all those yet to be slaughtered. As in all wars, the death toll only ever increases. This war must end.

In a 1964 letter to German social psychologist and humanist philosopher Erich Fromm, Bertrand Russell argued that: “War should be treated as murder is treated. It should be regarded with equal horror and with equal aversion.” War is organised murder. The organisers of murder together with the individual murderers richly deserve our collective horror and aversion.

In the case of the war in Ukraine, international legal procedures have been initiated to catalogue the crimes already committed and to document those that will come if the war continues. Tribunals and hearings are under preparation. The leaders of NATO member states have been very clear in describing the horrors of the war in Ukraine and in identifying a culprit. Yet Mr Biden, Mr Johnson and allies are less forthcoming in their denunciations of the wars, some of them ‘illegal’, waged by US, British and NATO forces. Mr Johnson is vocal on crimes in Ukraine but silent on crimes in Yemen, a horror-show of human suffering imposed on that country by Britain’s ally, Saudi Arabia, and fuelled by arms sales from the UK. Mr Biden sees horror in Ukraine but sees nothing wrong with the wars he supported over decades of ‘public service’.

As bad as this rank hypocrisy is, the stark fact is that the US, UK and allies in the nuclear-armed NATO alliance are already preparing for the next war. Peace, justice and human rights are not actually on their agenda.

The next war

Without doubt, ultimate responsibility for the war in Ukraine rests with Mr Putin. It would, however, be untrue to say that each and every opportunity to de-escalate was taken. END Info and other publications traced the facts of these failures and documented the troubling developments that went with them. We argued for alternative measures: real security and cooperation, denuclearisation and a nuclear-free-zone in Europe. We advocated for diplomacy rather than brinkmanship. In so doing, we echoed the calls of the peace movements throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, when opportunities for a comprehensive change of course seemed credible afterer the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Rather than taking steps to achieve real security, NATO expanded both geographically and in terms of posture. NATO is now a ‘global’ force with an ever-expanding area of operation.

Despite the growing risks, 2021 seemed like a year of real possibilities compared to today. In 2021 we witnessed widespread discussion in Germany on the future of US nuclear bombs stationed in that country under NATO agreements. We witnessed some NATO member states agreeing to send observers to the First State Parties meeting of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Think-tanks and trade unions were actively engaged in developing a new approach to common security. Everything has shifted in a deadly direction.

It is common knowledge and common sense that all wars and military conflicts end in diplomacy and negotiation. Even where ‘military victory’ at the expense of murder, death and destruction is ‘achieved’ by one side or another, diplomacy and negotiation conclude the matter. It will likely be the case that the horrors in Ukraine will end in a similar fashion. Everyone knows this, yet those in power do not have the good sense to act on this basis. Rather, they are preparing for the next war.

For example, just three days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a referendum in neighbouring Belarus approved a new constitution that ditched the country’s non-nuclear-weapon status (27 February 2022). According to reports, 65.2% of those who voted agreed to this change, which makes it possible, for example, for Russia to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus. No doubt, Mr Lukashenko will tell the people of Belarus that such a move ‘enhances our security’. Such a turn of phrase will be familiar to the peoples of Finland and Sweden, two countries which look set to join the NATO nuclear-armed alliance to ‘enhance security’. If it’s true that the Belarus decision has made the world a more dangerous place, then it is also true that Finland and Sweden joining NATO makes the world a more dangerous place.

Military ‘solutions’ are nothing of the sort, they just bring greater risks and a greater possibility of death and destruction. ‘Security’ is not enhanced with nuclear weapons or by joining a nuclear-armed alliance. Rather than achieveing ‘security’, risks are multiplied and the foundations for the next war are established.

Militarisation

Preparations for the next war can be detected not only in the serial failures to pursue peace, the geographic expansion of NATO, the development of new nuclear weapons and the rest. Europe is now entering a period of rapid re-militarisation. If we wind the clock back a year or two, we will recall President Trump’s repeated complaints about the lack of military spending by European states. Trump has departed the political scene and we should hope that he never returns. However, Trumpian levels of military spending are now on the agenda.

As social conditions in Europe spiral ever downwards, as the prospect of widespread poverty intensifies, as living costs skyrocket and as the impacts of Covid and the deficiencies of the economy endure, European countries are pledging billions in increased military spending. Trump would be proud. These things cannot be isolated from the growth of right-wing political forces across the continent: from the Johnson government in Britain, through the streets and voting booths of France, to the government of Hungary. The situation is dangerous. Billions of Euros for machines of murder and destruction whilst the poor get poorer will not ‘guarantee security’. Quite the opposite.

The dimensions of this crisis are not limited to developments in Europe. Note the already-shifting remit of the ‘AUKUS’ alliance between Australia, the UK and US. Within the past month, it has been announced that this alliance will now cover the development and deployment of hypersonic missiles. For what purpose? Who will be the target? Additionally, further efforts have been initiated to include Japan in the alliance. Such a move would massively escalate existing tensions in the region and would mark a significant change in military posture for Japan.

The arc of militarisation extends across the Atlantic, over Europe and far into the southern hemisphere. Existential risks follow this same arc.

End this war ... stop the next one

The peace movements face a monumental challenge as a result of Putin’s war and the militarism of NATO and Europe. There are visible tensions and sharp disagreements. We are, however, united by an understanding that the immediate tasks are to end the war in Ukraine, end the death and destruction that come with it and to resist the drives to escalation. We are also united by the aim of stopping anything like this happening again. To achieve our aims, we must be clear-sighted about the longstanding dynamics and the more recent, dramatic, shifts. We must understand the potential consequences and prepare to resist them.