Home Essential support Why is a compromise with Russia essential to protect Ukrainian lives?

Why is a compromise with Russia essential to protect Ukrainian lives?


A few days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) sentenced the offensive and demanded the activation of diplomatic conduits for de-escalation. Calling for the American withdrawal from NATO, more and more vocal The political group again urged an end to “the imperialist expansionism of the military alliance which has prepared the ground for this conflict”.

A balanced version of the conflict had minimal tolerance within warmongers in the US Congress, media, and political spectrum. US lawmakers blasted the statement and a White House official characterized as “shameful”. The nation’s electronic and print broadcasters lashed out at the “Squad” and “pseudo-leftists” as well as progressive Bernie Sanders who quoted former Secretary of Defense William Parry Washington”deserved much of the blame” for bringing NATO to Russian borders.

Read more: The Russian-Ukrainian military standoff and its global implications – Part 1

Better understand the subject

The leftist stance on NATO expansion may be reckless for jingoists in the United States; it was not new at all. Many American leaders The figures for example George Kennan in 1998 singled out the repercussions of NATO enlargement. The architect of the US containment strategy described the integration of three Soviet satellite states – Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic – into NATO as a “start of the New Cold War”, warning of its disastrous effects. The “tragic mistake”, he said, “would cause the founding fathers of this country to turn in their graves”.

Several dozen members of Congress, mostly Republicans, have recently vote yes to providing $5.8 billion in humanitarian aid and said no to $6.5 billion in military aid to Kyiv. Their understanding was entirely in harmony with the innocuous position of the socialists who are trying to build a anti-war movement and oppose US interventions and sanctions against foreign states.

An impending communist state dissolutionwhose first signs appeared in 1989 and accelerated by Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of openness (Glasnost) and restructuring (Perestroika), forced the Soviet leader the following year to ask the United States for assurances that he would not there would be no NATO extension “not (even) a thumb to the east. Admonish NATO expansion for violating the spirit of the 1990 protocol, the Kremlin questioned Washington’s “double game” in 1997.

Read more: The BRI through the prism of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict

Looking at the excerpts from the story

In 2004, the United States welcomed seven countries including three former Soviet states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – in NATO. The second extension as a reward for supporting the United States illicit military campaign in Iraq, “a typical American spectacle, with waterfalls and special effects,” said the balance of the alliance further east. The effort to maintain a strong foothold in the region alarmed Russia as it constituted a serious threat to Russian state security.

of NATO irresponsible Eastern enlargement caused the Ukrainian crisis in 2014; it is the pivot of Moscow’s invasion of kyiv today. Western observers also point the finger at the United States and NATO”arrogant» expansionist policy and interference in Ukrainian domestic politics in 2013 and 2014 for recent Ukrainian difficulties at the hands of the Russian strongman.

Critics of US foreign policy say Allied policy “has been anything but pro-Ukrainian.” Ironically, “another pointless war spurred on by Washington’s arrogance and short-sightedness” pushed back Putin’s view. conciliatory reader, he offered to the German Bundestag during his speech in 2001, through NATO’s relentless advance in Eastern Europe and lately, intends to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian”.

They support the DSA’s ‘longstanding’ peace campaign and want to avoid escalation rather than replicate the searing pandemic episode when the US media rummaged through documents to blame the pathogen on individuals and states. Yet the country’s hawks continue to denigrate and suppress these anti-war sentiments.

Read more: Britain’s spy chief says Putin has lost the war in Ukraine

American double standards?

Joe Biden’s image of Putin as a ‘war criminal’ is a “hypocrisywhich ignores US war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries. The world rightly blames Moscow for its brutal invasion of kyiv; the US president, who himself lobbied for the war in Iraq, and Washington, which has a checkered history of intrusions, should likewise be responsible for the collateral damage, economic devastation and civilian carnage in a number of world states.

Washington’s savagery, in fact, is far more atrocious than Moscow’s. Over the years, the inhumane economic and financial sanctions imposed by the United States on countries like Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela have punished entire populations to trigger regime change. It has armed the Israeli armed forces of occupation with thousands of lethal weapons to exterminate the Palestinians and undermine their freedom and basic human rights. This military and economicon the edge of the abyssis a contemporary form of American authoritarianism that, masked by egalitarianism, constrains rebellious countries and brings competing economies together to assert international influence and secure global supremacy.

The United States’ destructive handling of the conflict prompted UNCTAD to demote global economic growth forecast from 3.6% to 2.6% for 2022. This forecast is a grim omen of the cataclysmic effects of war on the international economy, as the conflict puts upward pressure on international commodity prices. energy and staple foods, stretches household budgets and adds to production costs with trade disruptions and sanctions that should act as a deterrent to long-term investment.

America, already facing high inflation of 7.9% for 40 years and rising food, energy and house prices from February, cannot grow in isolation. . With the effects of the war in March, the gap between the cost of living and wage growth will become a major political issue. threatens for Biden before the midterm elections as about a the third of consumers, according to a Bloomberg survey, expect the overall financial situation to deteriorate over the coming year.

Read more: Economic repercussions of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis on Pakistan

By addressing some of the Russian concerns about NATO, the United States could have prevented the next global economic and peace crises. It may still be possible, given that the American media stops beating the drums of war and avoids painting a racist picture of the conflict. More importantly, Washington must reverse its hawkish foreign policy and stop exploiting American dominance in the global payments system. Negotiations with the Taliban, albeit in an embarrassing and humiliating way, ended the US “eternal” war in Afghanistan; a compromise with Russia to protect Ukrainian lives and the US and international economy could also end this.

The writer is a private professional and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts. The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the editorial policy of Global Village Space.