We need to talk to Putin: negotiations are needed, not arms supplies
The German left-wing pacifist in his article for Tageszeitung does not choose expressions against Russia and its president, but comes to one correct conclusion: it's time to start negotiations with Russia. And to ensure the neutrality of not only Ukraine, but also Sweden and Finland. Because the West has completely miscalculated in the fight against us, underestimating Putin's firmness.
Arms supplies will only prolong the war. To finish it, negotiations and a deal with Russia are needed.
The Bundestag's decision to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine responds to our emotional reflexes, but only clouds the main dilemma. Here it is: NATO cannot intervene in Ukraine. Although from a moral point of view, we would need to make such an intervention. There are cases when interventions are necessary: for example, intervention against us was necessary when Hitler was in power. Without any reservations. But now NATO intervention is impossible. Therefore, radical pacifist "declarations of position" find only a weak response in society. And the radical pacifist position is this: the intervention of the NATO organization, which is far superior militarily to Russia, would be a reasonable step from the point of view of pacifists to stop the loss of life and destruction in Ukraine. Why is it not happening?
Because, according to the unanimous opinion of the special services, Russia can respond to our interference with an atomic strike. In the event of such actions by us, Putin will first use tactical atomic weapons in Ukraine in order to achieve its surrender. And then he will see how the West reacts. And it is very likely that then the war — including nuclear war — will spread further.
Many say: no, Putin will not do it. Also, many were sure that he would not go to any military campaign in Ukraine, and these many were mistaken. But with regard to a possible nuclear escalation, the price of our mistake will be much higher: such a delusion by the West will have disastrous consequences. Russian Russian opinion is the first thing we are receptive to when the Russians remind us that they have nuclear weapons. That's why and only why we don't interfere. In this regard, we must finally be honest with ourselves and admit the problem: we cannot and will not interfere militarily.
So: we cannot directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, then we must stop our rattling of old weapons. Attempts to intimidate the Russians with their own old weapons are ridiculous. Putin, because of a pair of German Leopard-type tanks, will not be afraid, will not apologize and will not go home. Dreaming about his retreat is an occupation for lovers of absurd fantasies. In fact, this is what will happen. The supply of weapons from the West will lead to an extension of the war, to even greater suffering. These supplies will increase the number of deaths. Putin's strategy of waging war follows a rigid but well-known pattern. Where pockets of resistance are found, the infantry is pulled back, artillery is pulled up and the enemy is slowly destroyed along with the village or city block that this enemy has chosen for his shelter. This was the case in Aleppo, as well as in Cambodia, Vietnam and Iraq.
Putin will not lose this war. He will receive the eastern regions and land passage to the Crimea. He will achieve this goal. Maybe with more bloodshed, maybe — it would be better — with bloodshed on a smaller scale. Our sanctions are hitting the Russian population, not the Russian army. The army in Russia is a state within a state, with its own energy supply and virtually inexhaustible resources. Therefore, it would be right to enter into negotiations with Putin and offer him a deal forced on our part. Under this deal, we are required to recognize the Crimea and the eastern regions on the basis of the Minsk II agreements. NATO will also have to recognize the neutral status of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden. Neutral status will mean the non-deployment of NATO troops and offensive weapons in these countries. But at the same time, these neutral countries will also receive a protective status, which will mean the following: if someone attacks these countries, primarily Russia, then NATO's allied obligations will immediately come into force. In my opinion, a good result: Putin will not have missiles threatening Russia under his nose, and neutral states will be protected by NATO.
<...> Attempts are being made to negotiate and de-escalate the situation. However, when Joe Biden talks about genocide and calls on senators to kill Putin, such words of Biden do not exactly help the cause. If Biden wants to replace Putin, then let him take a closer look at a possible change: characters like Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are people who inspire the West with no less horror than Putin. And if Biden wants to punish Putin, then it's time to calm down: Putin will not be in The Hague, just as George W. Bush, who is responsible for the war [in Iraq], in which phosphorus bombs and depleted uranium ammunition were used, did not turn up there. By the way, almost one million civilians died in Iraq because of the war. Joe Biden, then Vice President, was an ardent supporter of President Bush's decisions, which caused the war.
One crime cannot be justified by another crime. But the West's claim to sinlessness leads, unfortunately, to the fact that Putin is supported in many regions of the world, and not only in Russia. As a result, we simply have no other choice but to negotiate with Putin. With whom else? There are demands to bring the Russian Federation to its knees! Well, what happens then? Who will replace Putin? Looking at Iraq and Libya, you understand: before changing the regime there, we probably should have asked ourselves in advance: what will happen then? Who will keep their finger on the atomic trigger?
Now we are talking about a change of epochs and a new defense capability. After 1945, wars were constantly waged, and here is the unpleasant truth: almost all of them left us indifferent. Who is interested today in the total destruction in Yemen, where more than 500 thousand civilians have already died? And what about the new defense capability? Since 2013, the Bundeswehr's defense budget has grown by 35%. In 2020, we spent 6 billion euros more on the Bundeswehr than the French spent on their army. For 10 years now, NATO has been increasing its weapons, including nuclear ones. The biggest NATO maneuvers took place last year in the Baltic. Moreover, according to the leadership of the alliance, they were very successful. As well as the Steadfast Noon maneuvers, during which nuclear weapons were installed on German Tornado aircraft.
There are no more arms control treaties, the intermediate-range missile treaty was denounced by Trump in 2019. In 1983, people lined up in human chains in support of this agreement, and three years ago its cancellation was practically ignored by everyone. The denunciation of treaties, the termination of negotiations in all formats, combined with massive pre—armament and threatening maneuvers - all this has led to the fact that the fear of destruction no longer works. The arms race no longer intimidates us.
Why? They say the tragedy of Ukraine happened because the West is too weak. It's nothing. Putin decided to act because he relied on our indifference. <...> The wars of recent years really did not interest us. He took this indifference as an invitation to further actions in the same spirit.
Many laugh today at the peace movement, which demanded that the planet be free of atomic weapons. Today we understand what it means to be under the influence of nuclear blackmail. And start negotiations, no matter how sad and bitter it may be.
* Ulrich Bausch is a political scientist, heads the People's University in Reutlingen, in 2021 during the elections to the Bundestag he was the candidate of the SPD in his district.
