96 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 27 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

A Bitter Pill

Follow Me on Twitter     Message Michael Morrissey
Become a Fan
  (16 fans)

Slogan of peace without war is written on the man hand in red STOP WAR
Slogan of peace without war is written on the man hand in red STOP WAR
(Image by focusonmore.com)
  Details   DMCA

"Bitter," said Maren. She was speaking German and I didn't know what she meant at first. Even after 43 years in Germany, I still tend to hear with my English ears. So I heard "embittered," as in "bitter old man." Was that how she saw me? Christian agreed that "Bitter" was the right word to describe my article ("Germany Could Stop the War, But Won't"), which they had just read. I didn't have a chance to probe further because dinner was ready and the children had to be corralled around the table.

That was three months ago, and I still don't know if they agree with me or not. We try to avoid the subject. Vee and I are together almost 24/7, so we have time to massage our disagreements, but we see our daughter and son-in-law and the grandchildren only once a week for a couple of hours. That time is too precious to be spent arguing about the war in Ukraine.

It has occurred to me in the meantime, though, that "bitter" in this case meant "unpleasant," as in "a bitter pill," or "the bitter truth." So yes, it was the right word.

Tens of thousands of dead and wounded Ukrainians and Russians, one country (Ukraine) in ruins, another one (Germany) in the process of committing economic suicide, the US and its allies spending tens of billions of dollars to fight the Russians in a war it cannot win and pushing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. Yes, this is a bitter pill to swallow.

All for nothing. Because of nothing. Something that could have been avoided with five words: Ukraine will not join NATO.

That is now a fact. Ukraine will never join NATO, if it survives as a state at all. The four easternmost provinces of Ukraine (Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia) are now part of Mother Russia, and will be defended as such. It remains to be seen what will become of Odesa and Transnistria. It is hard to imagine that Russia, having come this far, will allow Russian-speaking Odessa, a major seaport and transport hub, to remain part of Ukraine. The recent mobilization of 300,000 additional Russian troops has made this even less likely.

I try to avoid talking about this subject, for the same reason I don't talk about Julian Assange. This is because I have zero tolerance for the "other side" on these issues. Re Julian, I have no words at all. Just rage. On Ukraine, I can't help listening to the other side because it is blared at me night and day through the mass media. The best I can do is grit my teeth and try not to explode in expletives.

Writing is different. Hence this, and on Facebook, since they haven't banned me yet, I share links to people who say and write everything I could say and more: John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen (RIP), Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Noam Chomsky, Matt Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Alexander Rubenstein, Ben Norton, Tulsi Gabbard, Col. Richard Black, Col. Douglas Macgregor, Jimmy Dore, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Michael Hudson, Pepe Escobar, Larry Johnson, Col. Jacques Baud, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Brian Berletic, Alex Cristoforou and Alexander Mercouris (The Duran), Jackson Hinkle (The Dive), Natali and Clayton Morris (Redacted), Kim Iversen, Caitlin Johnstone, Michael Tracey, MoonofAlabama.com and TheSaker.is (whose authors prefer to remain anonymous), even Henry Kissinger. Vladimir Putin! Sergey Lavrov. Sergei Choigu. The last three - despite the efforts of the US and European Truth Ministries to silence pro-Russian voices by banning RT.com and Sputniknews.com and anyone on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube they don't like - can still be heard (oddly enough) at mid.ru, kremlin.ru, russiaun.ru, Tass.com, Russian.RT.com, or even on the Facebook pages of the Russian Embassy in London, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in New Zealand, or the Russian Embassy in the Philippines.

I just learned the other day, listening to Aaron Mate and Katie Halper on their Useful Idiots podcast, about a new book by Benjamin Abelow called How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe. This is an excellent and concise review of the history that everyone should be familiar with, all in one place. It already has a number of stellar endorsements from Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Jack Matlock, Chas Freeman, Douglas Macgregor, Richard Sakwa, and Krishen Mehta.

Abelow doesn't say much about the Ukrainian Nazis or anything about the US bio(weapons) labs or the supposed Russian war crimes - the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the POW camp at Olenivka or the railroad station at Kramatorsk, or the massacre of civilians at Bucha - all of which were much more likely perpetrated by Ukrainians, but this would have gone beyond the scope of the book.

Nor does he return to his suggestion in the introduction that "[n]otwithstanding all I will say, I believe he [Putin] had alternatives to war." This question - whether he had any realistic alternative - is important, since the assumption that he did underlies the Western quasi de rigueur denunciations of it as "unprovoked aggression," a "war crime," an "Angriffskrieg," etc., all of which go out the window if he did not have a realistic alternative.

So I wrote to Dr. Abelow about this. He replied (Sept. 26, quoted here with his permission) that from a moral standpoint Putin should have tried everything conceivable, regardless of the chances of success, before launching a war that would cause so much devastation. For example, he said,

Mr. Putin could have implemented some of the steps he has taken since the invasion, in particular, threatening (and then restricting) the flow of natural gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline system, as a way to signal the seriousness of his security concerns. I believe that for this to have had any chance of success it would have needed to be preceded and then accompanied by a strong effort to explain (again!) his situation and security concerns in a way that might be understood. This would likely involve both public statements to the media (to the extent he would be listened to) and, perhaps more importantly, the U.N. and any international bodies in which Russia was active. He should have made it clear that he did not want to go to war, as that would lead to the maiming and death of both civilians and the human beings we call soldiers, on both sides of the struggle, as well as to the destruction of property and the worsening of a refugee crisis in Europe.

But this is easier said than done. We only need to actually read the many speeches and interviews that have been published on Russian sites (see above) - in English (or that translate automatically into English) - to see how little of what Putin or Lavrov say ever makes it through the Western media filter to reach the general public, and how the little that is reported is invariably distorted. The speech that Lavrov gave at the UN Security Council on Sept. 22 is a typical example. Try to find a copy of it in the MSM.

Contrast the virtually non-existent representation of the Russian viewpoint with the ubiquitous presentation of Zelensky as a super-hero. What would this have looked like if the Russians had turned off the gas in Europe in order to force us to make Zelensky do what he has steadfastly refused to do, with the full backing and encouragement of the US and NATO, ever since 2014 US-orchestrated coup that overthrew the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich and replaced him with the US-compliant Arseniy ("Yats is the guy") Yatsenyuk? By not invading and resorting instead to what really would have been energy blackmail, Putin would have reaped the same reward of hatred (perhaps deserved in that case) from the Europeans and gained no leverage over the Ukrainians. On the contrary, postponing the invasion would have given Zelensky and his NATO backers more time to prepare for the invasion that was inevitable anyway, and likely encouraged and hastened the Ukrainian invasion of Donbas that the Russians claim was being planned before Feb. 24 (see here and here).

As for using the pipelines to try to force the Europeans (especially Germany) to pressure Zelensky, we have already seen what effect that has had. The Russians didn't have to cut off anything. It's the other way around. The Europeans cut off their own supply of cheap energy from Russia, and then, quite absurdly, accused Russia of "energy blackmail"! If indeed it had been the Russians doing the blackmailing, the Europeans would have cried "blackmail" even more loudly - and in that case correctly - and would have been even less likely to side with the Russians.

Now of course the pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and 2, are no longer a factor. This is not a blow to Russia, since both pipelines were virtually defunct even before they were blown up a few days ago, but it is a blow to Europe, especially to Germany. Just as the weather is getting colder and the protests are heating up against the warmongering and sanctions policy of the US-obedient German government, the obvious alternative of opening Nord Stream 2 is gone - just as both President Biden and Victoria ("F*ck the EU") Nuland promised it would be earlier this year (see here). The threat that has now been eliminated, or so no doubt hope our demented leaders, is the threat of public protest against the coming economic catastrophe that could have been avoided simply by opening Nord Stream 2. A big win for the US LNG industry and a big loss for both European industry and the people.

None of this is to condone the invasion. Understanding the history, which Abelow lays out clearly, whether or not you think Putin had any other alternative, is not to approve of or justify the Russian decision. I can understand why my dog bit the postman without having to approve of it. Likewise if the postman kicks (or bites) my dog. In any case, Abelow is absolutely right that our current situation today

could only have been arrived at through a level of American governmental stupidity and blindness, and, among the leaders of Europe, a level of deference and cowardice, that is almost inconceivable.

Both my countries, my birth country (the US) and my adopted country (Germany), have opted for insanity. They have chosen war and economic suicide over peace and prosperity when both could have been easily avoided. The road back to sanity is still viable, despite pipeline sabotage and the loss of tens of thousands of (mostly Ukrainian) lives, but it will be difficult and probably require regime-change in at least one of the countries, and sooner rather than later. I have no hope that little Olaf will put on his "big-boy pants," as Scott Ritter likes to say, and suddenly become "Olaf, glad and big." Theoretically he could be removed from office by a vote of no confidence, but unfortunately in the German system this can only happen if there is a prospective successor who could win a majority vote in parliament, and there is no one even close. The "far-right" AfD has less than 11% of the vote, and the "far-left" Linke barely more than 5%. These are the only ones of the six major parties who have shown any opposition to the warmongering policies of the ruling coalition.

Here is what I wish big Olaf would say:

The war in Ukraine has made it clear that there can be no meaningful security arrangements in Europe without the full participation of Russia. Therefore, in order to be a force for peace instead of war, Germany will no longer send weapons to Ukraine or impose sanctions on Russia. Instead we call for an immediate cease-fire and negotiations that will satisfy the security concerns of both Ukraine and Russia. We guarantee that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO or be used as a de facto extension of NATO, and we call for a pan-European security architecture that will include Russia and supersede NATO.

With such a speech Scholz would go down in history as the greatest statesman of his time, and maybe of all time, since it may well avert a nuclear holocaust. If tens of thousands of Germans hit the streets in protest, as happened recently in Prague, it is possible.


(Article changed on Oct 01, 2022 at 2:45 AM EDT)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Michael Morrissey Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter Page       Linked In Page       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Former teacher, born in the US now a German citizen. Author of "Correspondence with Vincent Salandria," "Looking for the Enemy," "The Transparent Conspiracy," et al. and most recently "Chomsky, Prouty and Me." I blog at (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

David North Is David W. Green: So What?

9/11 Aletheia

Was the Air Force One Flyover a Warning to Obama?

An Open Letter to Noam Chomsky and Paul Craig Roberts

A Psychiatrist Searches for Sanity in a Crazy World

Transparent Underpants: MITOP Again

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend