![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hozar I am not in a position to address politicians directly. But I have the opportunity to appeal to their voters. It is about the fate of all humanity, and especially about the fate of Europe.
The world order, which was based on the power of law, has once again been completely destroyed by a union of despotic states that dream of world domination. The closest analogy is the end of the 1930s, when undemocratic regimes fueled a world war. At that time, it was Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and fascist Italy. Today - it is imperialist Russia, terrorist Iran and communist China. Today's situation is in some ways even worse than then. Today, terrorist countries even preside over the UN and veto any decisions that would lead to a de-escalation of tensions. They lie unheard of from high international tribunes. They bribe politicians retail and parties wholesale. They are waving their nuclear stick and expanding regional conflicts. They commit genocide, mass crimes against humanity and humanity with impunity. The smell of a New World War is getting clearer in the air.
It cannot be said that it happened suddenly. And that it was inevitable. Just as a harsh response to Hitler's annexation of the Rhineland could have closed the way to World War II, a harsh response to Putin's annexation of Crimea could have prevented the current war. But the lessons of the Second World War were not learned. Putin gradually raised the stakes just as Hitler did. The world ignored the genocide of the Chechen people, brushed off Russia's attack on Georgia, ignored Russia's ultimatum to NATO, and barely reacted to Russia's aggression against Ukraine in 2014. Germany, France and the USA persuaded the then Ukrainian leadership not to resist the seizure of Crimea. Merkel and Hollande persistently pushed Ukraine to virtual surrender in Minsk. Everyone was in a hurry to make money together with "friend Vladimir". If Chamberlain were alive, he would repeat his famous phrase about not wanting to be bothered by the conflict of people he knows nothing about. However, it was silently repeated by other leading politicians of the world. Instead of punishing the criminal, he was encouraged to commit new crimes and new conflicts. Looking at such a venal and capitulating policy, Putin decided that he had nothing to fear and launched an open military attack. He immediately openly declared his goal: the destruction of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a phenomenon - what is called genocide in international law.
So, responsible politicians of democratic countries came to their senses and created a military coalition to face this challenge? No, they still hope to re-educate the rabid dog and use it in their service. To return to the comfortable past, when they bargained profitably with the devil, not wanting to think about who would be the ultimate winner.
But don't they express support for Ukraine? They express. But, unfortunately, words do not shoot. A force can only be defeated by another force.
But is there no military aid to Ukraine? Definitely, it is. Without it, Ukraine would have fallen long ago. However, this is not the Lend-Lease that broke Hitler's military might. The size of arms and ammunition supplies to Ukraine is pipette-sized. It is designed to slow down the offensive of the occupier, not to defeat it. To be honest, the defeat of Russia scares Western politicians more than the existence of this terrorist state. It is similar to how surgery to remove a tumor scares the patient more than the tumor itself. However, Ukrainians are grateful for any help, whatever it may be.
However, for the third year already, they cannot understand the logic of their Western partners. They probably consider it acceptable that Russian missiles fly to their target and kill Ukrainians en masse. Because they consider it unacceptable to destroy airfields and launch pads on enemy territory with Western weapons in order to prevent these missile attacks. This, they say, will be seen as a direct confrontation with NATO. In other words, the killing of Russian soldiers by the weapons of NATO countries is not an escalation, but saving the lives of Ukrainians without killing Russian citizens is an escalation. The American leadership is categorically against strikes on oil depots that supply fuel to Russian military equipment. Like, it could raise gas prices in America and affect the election campaign. It seems that for the sake of the rating of some politician, Ukrainians have to endure the bombing of schools, children's hospitals and maternity homes. Another example from many similar ones: they say, striking deep into Russian territory can be considered by Russia as a fact of aggression against it. And therefore, it can lead to the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, striking the occupied Ukrainian territories, which Russia has already managed to write into its Constitution as part of it, will not be considered by Russia as an invasion of its territory, and does not contain such a threat. You can mention a lot of similar paradoxes. Because of them, Ukraine is forced to fight with its hands tied.
But isn't the population of Europe spending billions of euros to help Ukraine and its residents? It really is, and you can even agree with their righteous indignation. Like, why do we have to endlessly spend money on a business that has no promising prospects? But that is precisely why there are no encouraging prospects, because there is no political will to get rid of the cause of the conflict. While the political will to preserve despotic Russia as an age-old source of European conflicts exists. This somewhat resembles the struggle of pseudo-ecologists for the purity of river water. They are just as endlessly wasting resources on cleaning drinking water instead of shutting down the plant that is poisoning the river.
Is this policy successful? Looks like not. Ukraine is four times smaller than Russia. She has already lost the best part of her army, and under the existing conditions she faces inevitable defeat. No matter how extraordinary the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian defenders, their number is rapidly melting. While Europe is waiting and weighing various options, Ukraine is bleeding. Ten million refugees, destroyed cities and businesses, hundreds of thousands killed by Russian weapons.
So, maybe we should just stop the bloodshed? But what will be the consequences of this stop? A cease-fire will not bring peace to the continent as long as the imperial regime in Russia exists. Today's stoppage of war is a new, even bloodier war in three or five years, until Russia develops improved plans and accumulates enough forces and means for a new war. Unpunished evil will return even stronger. The only chance for peace is the military defeat of the aggressor. His economic exhaustion is so devastating that he does not have the strength for new adventures. And finally, giving Ukraine security guarantees as a NATO member to make a new war pointless.
At the same time, if you look through Ukrainian eyes, it seems that other ideas have been winning for two and a half years. The hope that the predator will turn into a herbivore, that Russia will finally understand the futility of its policy and restore the status quo. The hope that the predator will be satisfied with this victim and leave the others alone. The hope that Ukraine, at the cost of its life, will exhaust Russia for a few years of a relatively calm life for European politicians. This is the approach of people who think about today, and not about the fate of future generations. Of course, politicians of other countries are not obliged to root for Ukrainians, but they are obliged to root for their citizens. Which sooner or later will become another victim if the predator is not neutralized. And they do not neutralize it, but try to preserve it.
What conclusions does Russia draw from such a policy? Her method works, and it only takes time for the world to finally capitulate to Moscow. Force, audacity and blackmail triumph over law, political correctness and will. There are no obstacles for someone who acts decisively and tramples established rules. So Russia will continue to do what it is doing and raise the stakes until the civilized world gives up.
What conclusions does Iran draw from such a policy? It turns out that when you have nuclear weapons, the Islamic countries will not only count with you, but also fear the USA. You can attack your neighbors, blackmailing her allies and paralyzing their will with the threat of nuclear war. Why not, Putin can do it.
What conclusions does China draw from such a policy? It turns out that now you can land your troops on Taiwan and start a great Pacific war. The maximum you risk is listening to deep concerns. Victims will be advised not to resist too much, so as not to provoke an even greater escalation. And when the aggressor achieves his goal, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief that everything is over, and you can continue to trade profitably with them.
What conclusions do all the nations of the world draw from such a policy?
The first conclusion. It turns out that when you try to become a member of a democratic community, you will be raped and killed. And world democracies will only give you political support. But not adequate military aid. Because the rapist and murderer plays the role of a madman with a nuclear bomb, and therefore he cannot be annoyed. It is better to be on the side of non-democratic countries. Thus, it is possible to predict a sharp increase in their international influence.
The second conclusion. It turns out that dictatorial countries are more effective than democratic ones. Because there are no rules and no restrictions for them. While the democracies are discussing plans and coordinating their interests, the dictators' troops manage to reach the Dnieper. And they could even reach the English Channel. They can do whatever they want without significant consequences for themselves. Dictators can be declared international criminals, and at the same time invited to the G-20 and shake hands with them. Dictators can openly mock your statements, resolutions and sanctions. They can terrorize the whole world, spread influence over new countries and create new alliances. They have already made sure that the consequences for their daring behavior are very few and they are very weak, and the gain can be significant. And the longer the tension in the world continues, the greater will be the number of voters in democratic countries who will agree to surrender in exchange for security. We can already see the growing influence of "Putinfersteiers" parties in Europe. Putin can achieve his goal even without the introduction of his troops.
The third conclusion. It turns out that if you voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine has faithfully done, then you very easily become an object of aggression. No one and nothing will help you. No memoranda, no neutrality and no promises are worth nothing. To feel safe, one must join one of the military blocs with nuclear weapons. And if you are not accepted there, then you have to develop your own nuclear program. Thus, we should expect the appearance of military blocs of dictatorial countries. We should expect a new nuclear arms race around the world.
This is the reality we have fallen into thanks to the current Russian aggression. A reality that is uncomfortable for everyone to admit. But it must be recognized. Failure to recognize these facts leads to disaster. From now on, no one is safe. The world war of the alliance of dictatorships against the civilized world is already underway and is spreading throughout the world. We are entering the decade of the wars that were so imprudently facilitated.
Until a world order based on law, not force, is restored, we will all live in a highly unstable world where dictators will play the leading role. We will lose not only security, but also freedom. While there is a chance to avoid it.
What should we do? Again, I would like to turn to historical parallels and recall Roosevelt's words: "The only thing we should be afraid of is our own fear." The time has come for decisive historical decisions, so that all peoples come to completely different conclusions.
1. Ukraine must be provided with everything necessary for its victory, while it still has the strength to do so. This will be a signal that anyone who follows the path of democracy can count on effective help from the free world.
2. The aggressor must suffer a crushing military defeat. This will be a signal that aggression does not make sense.
3. The aggressor must suffer a humiliating political defeat. The country that started the big war should be kicked out of the UN Security Council. This will be a signal that the world will not tolerate acts of aggression and annexation, whoever commits them.
4. The aggressor must suffer a powerful economic defeat. He must be deprived of the economic opportunity to wage war. The initiator of the war must pay for the damage caused in the course of the war, not his victim or an outsider. Russian funds lying in European banks should be handed over to the victim of aggression. Economic sanctions must be extended until the aggressor vacates the captured territories. The current Russian war we are witnessing is not Putin's war, just as World War II was not Hitler's war. This is a war of the Russian people, infected with the imperial idea, against the entire civilized world. Those who so euphorically rejoice in the destruction of another country must pay a high price for their desire to conquer other lands and subjugate other peoples.
5. All those who planned this war, propagated it and committed war crimes must be punished. This will prove that the punishment of criminals is inevitable.
6. NATO should accept Ukraine, Moldova and possibly Georgia. Otherwise, Russia will not stop its expansion in Europe. It was the rejection of this decision that led to today's tragedy. Everyone should see that the pursuit of European values is under protection, including nuclear protection.
Only all this, taken together, can bring down the Putin regime and finally give peace a chance. We must destroy the last empire of Europe, which is now waging its colonial war in order to regain its former influence, and which will never give up its ambitious plans. The dismantling of the Soviet Union shows that this is quite possible, and that it significantly reduces the military power of militarists. What European city could the hordes of Moscow reach today if the soldiers of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics were under its control?
Yes, the disintegration of such a large militarized monster as Russia carries certain risks. But the continuation of its existence carries, as we can see, even greater dangers. Because if Russia remains in its current imperial and militaristic form, there will always be the threat of a new war - open or secret, here or there, separate or joint with other dictatorships. The very existence of a successful democratic world is an existential challenge for dictatorial countries, and makes the destruction of democracy in the world a question of their existence. We must prove to the whole world that empires and dictatorships are unsustainable, and misanthropic ideas are hopeless.
We must gather courage and correct the mistakes of the past today, so that our children do not have to correct them with their blood tomorrow. We have no right to pass on this difficult inheritance to them. Moscoviae delenda est. The only question is whether we will show the political will to do it.
The world order, which was based on the power of law, has once again been completely destroyed by a union of despotic states that dream of world domination. The closest analogy is the end of the 1930s, when undemocratic regimes fueled a world war. At that time, it was Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and fascist Italy. Today - it is imperialist Russia, terrorist Iran and communist China. Today's situation is in some ways even worse than then. Today, terrorist countries even preside over the UN and veto any decisions that would lead to a de-escalation of tensions. They lie unheard of from high international tribunes. They bribe politicians retail and parties wholesale. They are waving their nuclear stick and expanding regional conflicts. They commit genocide, mass crimes against humanity and humanity with impunity. The smell of a New World War is getting clearer in the air.
It cannot be said that it happened suddenly. And that it was inevitable. Just as a harsh response to Hitler's annexation of the Rhineland could have closed the way to World War II, a harsh response to Putin's annexation of Crimea could have prevented the current war. But the lessons of the Second World War were not learned. Putin gradually raised the stakes just as Hitler did. The world ignored the genocide of the Chechen people, brushed off Russia's attack on Georgia, ignored Russia's ultimatum to NATO, and barely reacted to Russia's aggression against Ukraine in 2014. Germany, France and the USA persuaded the then Ukrainian leadership not to resist the seizure of Crimea. Merkel and Hollande persistently pushed Ukraine to virtual surrender in Minsk. Everyone was in a hurry to make money together with "friend Vladimir". If Chamberlain were alive, he would repeat his famous phrase about not wanting to be bothered by the conflict of people he knows nothing about. However, it was silently repeated by other leading politicians of the world. Instead of punishing the criminal, he was encouraged to commit new crimes and new conflicts. Looking at such a venal and capitulating policy, Putin decided that he had nothing to fear and launched an open military attack. He immediately openly declared his goal: the destruction of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a phenomenon - what is called genocide in international law.
So, responsible politicians of democratic countries came to their senses and created a military coalition to face this challenge? No, they still hope to re-educate the rabid dog and use it in their service. To return to the comfortable past, when they bargained profitably with the devil, not wanting to think about who would be the ultimate winner.
But don't they express support for Ukraine? They express. But, unfortunately, words do not shoot. A force can only be defeated by another force.
But is there no military aid to Ukraine? Definitely, it is. Without it, Ukraine would have fallen long ago. However, this is not the Lend-Lease that broke Hitler's military might. The size of arms and ammunition supplies to Ukraine is pipette-sized. It is designed to slow down the offensive of the occupier, not to defeat it. To be honest, the defeat of Russia scares Western politicians more than the existence of this terrorist state. It is similar to how surgery to remove a tumor scares the patient more than the tumor itself. However, Ukrainians are grateful for any help, whatever it may be.
However, for the third year already, they cannot understand the logic of their Western partners. They probably consider it acceptable that Russian missiles fly to their target and kill Ukrainians en masse. Because they consider it unacceptable to destroy airfields and launch pads on enemy territory with Western weapons in order to prevent these missile attacks. This, they say, will be seen as a direct confrontation with NATO. In other words, the killing of Russian soldiers by the weapons of NATO countries is not an escalation, but saving the lives of Ukrainians without killing Russian citizens is an escalation. The American leadership is categorically against strikes on oil depots that supply fuel to Russian military equipment. Like, it could raise gas prices in America and affect the election campaign. It seems that for the sake of the rating of some politician, Ukrainians have to endure the bombing of schools, children's hospitals and maternity homes. Another example from many similar ones: they say, striking deep into Russian territory can be considered by Russia as a fact of aggression against it. And therefore, it can lead to the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, striking the occupied Ukrainian territories, which Russia has already managed to write into its Constitution as part of it, will not be considered by Russia as an invasion of its territory, and does not contain such a threat. You can mention a lot of similar paradoxes. Because of them, Ukraine is forced to fight with its hands tied.
But isn't the population of Europe spending billions of euros to help Ukraine and its residents? It really is, and you can even agree with their righteous indignation. Like, why do we have to endlessly spend money on a business that has no promising prospects? But that is precisely why there are no encouraging prospects, because there is no political will to get rid of the cause of the conflict. While the political will to preserve despotic Russia as an age-old source of European conflicts exists. This somewhat resembles the struggle of pseudo-ecologists for the purity of river water. They are just as endlessly wasting resources on cleaning drinking water instead of shutting down the plant that is poisoning the river.
Is this policy successful? Looks like not. Ukraine is four times smaller than Russia. She has already lost the best part of her army, and under the existing conditions she faces inevitable defeat. No matter how extraordinary the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian defenders, their number is rapidly melting. While Europe is waiting and weighing various options, Ukraine is bleeding. Ten million refugees, destroyed cities and businesses, hundreds of thousands killed by Russian weapons.
So, maybe we should just stop the bloodshed? But what will be the consequences of this stop? A cease-fire will not bring peace to the continent as long as the imperial regime in Russia exists. Today's stoppage of war is a new, even bloodier war in three or five years, until Russia develops improved plans and accumulates enough forces and means for a new war. Unpunished evil will return even stronger. The only chance for peace is the military defeat of the aggressor. His economic exhaustion is so devastating that he does not have the strength for new adventures. And finally, giving Ukraine security guarantees as a NATO member to make a new war pointless.
At the same time, if you look through Ukrainian eyes, it seems that other ideas have been winning for two and a half years. The hope that the predator will turn into a herbivore, that Russia will finally understand the futility of its policy and restore the status quo. The hope that the predator will be satisfied with this victim and leave the others alone. The hope that Ukraine, at the cost of its life, will exhaust Russia for a few years of a relatively calm life for European politicians. This is the approach of people who think about today, and not about the fate of future generations. Of course, politicians of other countries are not obliged to root for Ukrainians, but they are obliged to root for their citizens. Which sooner or later will become another victim if the predator is not neutralized. And they do not neutralize it, but try to preserve it.
What conclusions does Russia draw from such a policy? Her method works, and it only takes time for the world to finally capitulate to Moscow. Force, audacity and blackmail triumph over law, political correctness and will. There are no obstacles for someone who acts decisively and tramples established rules. So Russia will continue to do what it is doing and raise the stakes until the civilized world gives up.
What conclusions does Iran draw from such a policy? It turns out that when you have nuclear weapons, the Islamic countries will not only count with you, but also fear the USA. You can attack your neighbors, blackmailing her allies and paralyzing their will with the threat of nuclear war. Why not, Putin can do it.
What conclusions does China draw from such a policy? It turns out that now you can land your troops on Taiwan and start a great Pacific war. The maximum you risk is listening to deep concerns. Victims will be advised not to resist too much, so as not to provoke an even greater escalation. And when the aggressor achieves his goal, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief that everything is over, and you can continue to trade profitably with them.
What conclusions do all the nations of the world draw from such a policy?
The first conclusion. It turns out that when you try to become a member of a democratic community, you will be raped and killed. And world democracies will only give you political support. But not adequate military aid. Because the rapist and murderer plays the role of a madman with a nuclear bomb, and therefore he cannot be annoyed. It is better to be on the side of non-democratic countries. Thus, it is possible to predict a sharp increase in their international influence.
The second conclusion. It turns out that dictatorial countries are more effective than democratic ones. Because there are no rules and no restrictions for them. While the democracies are discussing plans and coordinating their interests, the dictators' troops manage to reach the Dnieper. And they could even reach the English Channel. They can do whatever they want without significant consequences for themselves. Dictators can be declared international criminals, and at the same time invited to the G-20 and shake hands with them. Dictators can openly mock your statements, resolutions and sanctions. They can terrorize the whole world, spread influence over new countries and create new alliances. They have already made sure that the consequences for their daring behavior are very few and they are very weak, and the gain can be significant. And the longer the tension in the world continues, the greater will be the number of voters in democratic countries who will agree to surrender in exchange for security. We can already see the growing influence of "Putinfersteiers" parties in Europe. Putin can achieve his goal even without the introduction of his troops.
The third conclusion. It turns out that if you voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine has faithfully done, then you very easily become an object of aggression. No one and nothing will help you. No memoranda, no neutrality and no promises are worth nothing. To feel safe, one must join one of the military blocs with nuclear weapons. And if you are not accepted there, then you have to develop your own nuclear program. Thus, we should expect the appearance of military blocs of dictatorial countries. We should expect a new nuclear arms race around the world.
This is the reality we have fallen into thanks to the current Russian aggression. A reality that is uncomfortable for everyone to admit. But it must be recognized. Failure to recognize these facts leads to disaster. From now on, no one is safe. The world war of the alliance of dictatorships against the civilized world is already underway and is spreading throughout the world. We are entering the decade of the wars that were so imprudently facilitated.
Until a world order based on law, not force, is restored, we will all live in a highly unstable world where dictators will play the leading role. We will lose not only security, but also freedom. While there is a chance to avoid it.
What should we do? Again, I would like to turn to historical parallels and recall Roosevelt's words: "The only thing we should be afraid of is our own fear." The time has come for decisive historical decisions, so that all peoples come to completely different conclusions.
1. Ukraine must be provided with everything necessary for its victory, while it still has the strength to do so. This will be a signal that anyone who follows the path of democracy can count on effective help from the free world.
2. The aggressor must suffer a crushing military defeat. This will be a signal that aggression does not make sense.
3. The aggressor must suffer a humiliating political defeat. The country that started the big war should be kicked out of the UN Security Council. This will be a signal that the world will not tolerate acts of aggression and annexation, whoever commits them.
4. The aggressor must suffer a powerful economic defeat. He must be deprived of the economic opportunity to wage war. The initiator of the war must pay for the damage caused in the course of the war, not his victim or an outsider. Russian funds lying in European banks should be handed over to the victim of aggression. Economic sanctions must be extended until the aggressor vacates the captured territories. The current Russian war we are witnessing is not Putin's war, just as World War II was not Hitler's war. This is a war of the Russian people, infected with the imperial idea, against the entire civilized world. Those who so euphorically rejoice in the destruction of another country must pay a high price for their desire to conquer other lands and subjugate other peoples.
5. All those who planned this war, propagated it and committed war crimes must be punished. This will prove that the punishment of criminals is inevitable.
6. NATO should accept Ukraine, Moldova and possibly Georgia. Otherwise, Russia will not stop its expansion in Europe. It was the rejection of this decision that led to today's tragedy. Everyone should see that the pursuit of European values is under protection, including nuclear protection.
Only all this, taken together, can bring down the Putin regime and finally give peace a chance. We must destroy the last empire of Europe, which is now waging its colonial war in order to regain its former influence, and which will never give up its ambitious plans. The dismantling of the Soviet Union shows that this is quite possible, and that it significantly reduces the military power of militarists. What European city could the hordes of Moscow reach today if the soldiers of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics were under its control?
Yes, the disintegration of such a large militarized monster as Russia carries certain risks. But the continuation of its existence carries, as we can see, even greater dangers. Because if Russia remains in its current imperial and militaristic form, there will always be the threat of a new war - open or secret, here or there, separate or joint with other dictatorships. The very existence of a successful democratic world is an existential challenge for dictatorial countries, and makes the destruction of democracy in the world a question of their existence. We must prove to the whole world that empires and dictatorships are unsustainable, and misanthropic ideas are hopeless.
We must gather courage and correct the mistakes of the past today, so that our children do not have to correct them with their blood tomorrow. We have no right to pass on this difficult inheritance to them. Moscoviae delenda est. The only question is whether we will show the political will to do it.
