Russia Ukraine War Must End

There are three ways the Russian Ukraine conflict can end. Either Russia is decisively defeated, or Ukraine is decisively defeated, or there is some kind of negotiated settlement between the two countries. The first two scenarios are not only very unlikely but very very undesirable. They are unlikely because both the countries have enough resources and weapons at their disposal that they can keep on fighting low intensity war for a long time. And they are undesirable because any decisive victory for either Russia or Ukraine would mean unimaginable loss of life and property.

This leaves us only with one option. A negotiated settlement. Whether it happens now or some time in the future, Russia and Ukraine will come to the negotiating table. There is no other way. Each passing day more lives are lost, more cities are being destroyed. The conflict, already deadly and tragic enough, has the potential of becoming unimaginably more catastrophic. We already hear terms like ‘World war 3’, ‘Nuclear war’ being thrown around. For now, the possibility of such a nightmarish scenario appears remote, until it is not. The very fact that we are even talking about such a possibility itself should be a major cause of concern. The global community should do all it can to bring this conflict to an end as early as possible.

The war has entered eight months and the end appears nowhere on the horizon. Thousands of people have died, cities devastated, billions of dollars have been spent on causing the destruction, some parts of the world are facing food and energy shortage, inflation, economic downturn, recession are affecting millions and going to affect many more.  As it progresses even further, it will only bring more death and destruction. What will be the scale of the destruction, only time can tell.

 If we have any hope of bringing the war to an end, what we need is an honest and objective look at the causes which began  the conflict in the first place. Because in times like crises, when passions are running high, when anger, hurt, frustration, loss colour our judgements, we tend to simplify things, see them in black and white. We reduce the complex  nature of reality in simplistic good and evil terms. Disagreements and differences of opinion appear threatening and hostile. But any creative solutions to a complicated issue require the ability to see and appreciate multiple points of views, to listen to what the other side has to say even though it is chafing and jarring to our ears.

 Russian point of view

Let’s start with the Russian point of view, the obvious aggressor here. The invasion of Ukraine is a flagrant breach of international law and it should be condemned in no uncertain terms. But it is absolutely vital to understand why Putin chose to attack Ukraine. It is rather easy and convenient to label him as a power crazed dictator as many do.

But this attitude prevents us from seeing  the real cause of war which is geopolitical and strategic in nature. For Putin, Ukraine has become the frontline for the imperialist United States which is eating into a space which has traditionally been the sphere of Russian influence. As he puts it, Russia and Ukraine are, quote, “essentially the same historical and spiritual space”. 

Well, no surprise here. An autocratic, megalomaniac ruler with an expansionist agenda often tends to recreate an idealized and fictionalized version of the past which has little correspondence with reality. He then sees it as his mission to bring this fantasy into existence. 

NATO

But often the fantasies of the past are triggered by the anxieties and insecurities of the present, and what makes Russia insecure is the presence of NATO ever coming closer to its borders. NATO came into existence during the Cold War. Western capitalist countries formed a military alliance to counter the might of the Soviet Union. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO didn’t only continue to exist, but further kept on expanding into East Europe which Russia sees as a serious breach of promise given to them that NATO would not expand further into the East.

Meanwhile, countries in East Europe which  in the past formed parts of the communist block but have become democratic since, are only too eager to join NATO as it gives them security against their giant neighbour Russia whom they view with mistrust and apprehension, given the history. It is a matter of debate whether the expansion of NATO has made Europe more secure or it has the opposite effect. The fact is many experts had predicted that it would someday lead to war.

Ukraine’s point  of view

Quite contrary to Putin’s imagination, most Ukrainians see themselves as a separate nation with its own unique history, language and culture. Just like other countries in East Europe, Ukranians see Russia as an imperialist bully which has denied them their sovereignty and freedom, and has punished them with impunity whenever they asserted their autonomy. One such event was the famine 1932, 33 caused by the policy of Stalin which killed between three to five million Ukrainians. Moreover, a large number of Ukrainians see their future in Europe. They want to share in the prosperity of the European Union, and have a rule based democratic political system.

What complicates the matter, however, is the large number of ethenic Russians living in the Eastern part of Ukraine, most of whom see themselves as Russian and emotionally feel part of Russia. It is this demography which gives justification to Putin to interfere in the internal matters of Ukraine.

Matters came to a head when in 2014 the Maindan revolution overthrew the Russian backed government in Ukraine. Putin in response annexed Crimea, a peninsula in the Black Sea of great strategic importance. Crimea had been a part of the Russian Empire since 1783  when it won it from the Ottoman Empire. Then in 1954 Nikita Khrushchev, the premier of Soviet Russia gave it to Ukraine to mark the 300 anniversary of the pledge of allegiance by the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Tsar of Russia.

The transfer didn’t matter much then. Both the countries were parts of Soviet Unions and were on friendly terms. Krushchev would not have predicted in 1954 that the rival ideology capitalism would not only win but form alliances with former communist countries.

Even though Crimea officially was part of Ukraine, Russia continued to station a huge fleet. But when in 2014 political factions fuelled by anti-Russian sentiments came into power, Putin decided to annex Crimea to continue to keep his influence in the Black Sea. 

He also fomented unrest in East Ukraine which began a bloody civil war which has claimed thousands of lives. From the Ukrainian perspective, it was just yet another episode of humiliation by its giant neighbour. The two countries have been wrestling with each other since then and the recent flare up is just a continuation of that.  

What lies ahead

So what lies ahead? As mentioned before, the only way the conflict can end is when Russia and Ukraine come to the negotiating table and reach a deal. And as in any negotiated deal, there is always a give and take. It can be painful, but the pain might be worth it if it helps end the war and saves lives. Countries are made primarily of people and not borders. Let’s take the example of Europe. People here can go wherever the hell they want in Europe and do whatever the hell they want to do. Borders are almost irrelevant. But how many people died at these borders in the Second World war? All that loss of life seems so unnecessary and futile today.

People of Ukraine and Russia will feel the same way in the future. But they can make a difference now by privileging people over borders. History does not always have to be seen with the lense of regret and sorrow. If the tragedies of the past have any value for us, it is this. It should make us wiser. If we fail to learn the lesson, we will continue to pass on to our future generations the same traumas, the same follies. Only this time the tragedy can be just so much more colossal, that we simply can not offer it.

Bottomline. Talk, talk, and never cease talking. 

 

Aestheticization of Politics and Violence

His expression was that of a sincere man, calm and tranquil,  and he wanted his job done well. His victim begged helplessly, but he remained deaf to his cries. The pleas and requests of the passersby didn't have any effect either. His hands were in his pockets because his knew that his knee was enough; he just had to wriggle it a bit to set it more firmly. It took him less time, but he was at it for almost nine minutes. Just to make sure. Or perhaps to savour. Who knew what was going on behind that placid demeanour? 

The whole world watched the video of the act. But it was not the act itself (for it was not the first one, and sadly it won’t be the last) but the process, the effortless execution of it which sent shivers down the spines. The horror turned into rage. Many cities in the U.S. and outside erupted in protests which are still continuing.

 

Some time ago a similar incidence occurred on the other side of the world, in India. A policeman beat a Muslim man to death while making him sing the national anthem. One wonders what the poet who composed the national anthem, and who had little faith in the idea of nation would have thought of this particular rendition of his song. This killing was also captured on the camera but it led to no protests. Outrage might have been felt in private, but the incident was buried under a sea of overwhelming number of stories which are scripted everyday in the country and which we, the people of India, have masterfully learned to deal with stony indifference or maudlin sentimentality.

 

There is an obvious similarity between both the killings as they are perpetrated at the hands of the brutal, oppressive state machinery. But they are also similar in another respect which is symptomatic of a problem much larger and sinister. It is indicative of a certain kind of trend in politics which is ominously sweeping the globe. It is diversionary in nature and aims to divorce politics from its  progressive contents which is seeking social and economic equilibrium. Instead, it functions in the realm of abstraction and promises to fulfil aesthetic and spiritual needs of the masses. In place of seeking to provide social justice and alleviate economic hardships, it privileges so called- culture, so-called religion, so-called race etc. Identity instead of equality, pride instead of justice is its main goal.

 

The trend is on the rise everywhere. In Europe, the Far right parties which till a few years ago seemed loony fringes, are today serious contenders for power. In the United States, the very personification of callousness and megalomania has occupied the White House. In India, the Hindutva brigade is finally entrenching itself in the corridors of power for the first time after independence. Brazil has elected a president who is not shy of proclaiming himself as the successor of brutal military dictators. The president of Turkey is slowly revealing his fondness of a lost caliphate and would very much like to reinstate it. Russia does not even pretend to be democratic anymore. And China is a Communist, Capitalist, and Fascist state, all at the same time. These are the most obvious examples, but the list can go on. The prized values of democracy are fast receding. More and more people are putting their faith in such leaderships which have scant regard for the values of freedom and human rights.

 

Any comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon has to be complex and many-pronged, of course. But one underlying factor which has undoubtedly given rise to it is unprecedented economic disparity. The chasm has widened to such an extent that top one percent of the world’s population owns almost half of the wealth, top ten percent has ninety percent of the wealth, and the bottom ninety percent scramble for the ten percent. The present condition is unsustainable in a democratic society because democracy tends to equalise things, albeit often frustratingly slowly for reasons that 1) democracy is still in nascent stage, and 2) democracy in form is often passed off as democracy in spirit. But whatever the criticism, the free voices of the people can not but bring about a more equitable economic distribution.Therefore, if the disparity continues to exist in the current state, democracy has to go. The very nature of politics has to change what Walter Benjamin describes as “aesthetization of politics”. 

In the epilogue of his brilliant essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction",  Benjamin postulates that Fascism attempts to devoid politics of its contents and infuse it with the experience of art. When we see a piece of painting, or watch a play or film, or listen to a song, it stirs certain emotions in us what we call aesthetic experience. The nature of politics in Fascism is such that it arouses similar experience. It is done in order to preserve the "property relations" in society. It diverts people's attention from the issues of oppression, injustice, social and economic inequalities which politics should actually be dealing with. Politics is hollowed out of it contents and is supplanted with empty  rhetoric, posturing and gestures. “The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life.”

 

This is dangerous. Benjamin had a dire prediction when he wrote the essay in 1935, and, just in a few years, his prediction came true. He foresaw that failure to change the economic relations would inevitably lead to war because only war has the capacity to mobilise the masses, exhaust natural resources, make use of technological advancement to the capacity while maintaining the status quo.  “The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life.”

 We are inching towards a time similar to one in which Benjamin lived, and it would be prudent of us to worry a little about what the future holds. 

Follow the author on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ashu128