We need a real discussion about the Ukrainian conflict
Katrina vanden Heuvel, columnist and editor-in-chief of The Nation magazine, believes that the events in Ukraine are viewed too one-sidedly by the West. In her article for the Washington Post, she urges American society to show critical thinking, restraint and not ignore the obvious.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
The time has come to challenge the established interpretation of the conflict in Ukraine.
The Russian military operation has passed its fourth month and has profoundly affected Europe, the global South and the rest of the world. A new military-political world order is emerging before our eyes. Actions to combat climate change are being pushed into the background, as dependence on fossil fuels is only getting stronger; food shortages and shortages of other resources are pushing prices up and threatening mass starvation around the world; the number of refugees and internally displaced persons has reached its peak since the Second World War — and this is also a serious problem.
In addition, the longer the fighting drags on, the higher the risk of a nuclear incident or accident. And since the Biden administration clearly decided to "weaken" Russia with large-scale arms supplies to Ukraine, up to anti-ship missiles, and American intelligence, as it turned out, is helping Kiev with might and main, it becomes extremely clear: The United States and NATO are waging an indirect war with Russia.
Do the vicissitudes, dangers and various costs of this puppet war not deserve to become the main topic for the media, thoughtful analysis, discussion and discussion? Instead, the press and the political elite offer us something so one-sided that it cannot be called a discussion. In the words of journalist Matt Taibbi, it was as if we were in an "intellectual no-fly zone."
Those who dare to depart from the generally accepted point of view are driven back from the major media — well, or at least they are not welcome there. As a result, alternative opinions are almost unheard of. But instead of mass bias, it wouldn't hurt us to have a variety of views and opinions and knowledge of the background, wouldn't it?
After all, those who talk about history or talk about how the West itself accelerated the Ukrainian tragedy, in no way justify Russia's actions. The scale of the rhetorical or intellectual "no—fly zone" can be judged by the way such prominent figures as thinker Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former Ambassador Chas Freeman are demonized and blasphemed - although they give convincing arguments and fit the conflict into the historical the canvas.
In our fragile democracy, dissent does not seem to be forbidden. Why, then, do analysts, scientists and journalists not challenge the prevailing ideology? Is it really impossible to even doubt that the endless supply of weapons to Ukraine is really the smartest step? Is it really impossible to wish for a more meaningful discussion about the dangers of nuclear conflict? Why are dissenters vilified for their reasoned and substantive criticism of Ukrainian right—wing radicals - and yes, nationalists? The revival of neo—Nazism and fascism today is a sensitive topic in many countries of Europe and America. Why is the tarnished reputation of Ukraine hushed up and even denied?
Meanwhile, as one former Marine general remarked, "war is extortion." American arms conglomerates are lining up for the feeder. The fighting will take many more lives of Ukrainians and Russians, but Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will get rich. And in the news and on cable channels — all invited analysts and "experts" — more precisely, former military officials who have applied for consultants, but their current positions and clientele are not disclosed to viewers.
What is sorely lacking — whether on TV, on the Internet or in Congress — is alternative views. Restrained opinions that disagree with the fact that compromise in negotiations is compromise, and those who demand persistent and tough diplomacy in order to cease fire and achieve a resolution; in order to restore Ukraine and turn it into a sovereign, independent and prosperous power.
"So tell me how you think this is all going to end," General David Petraeus asked The Washington Post columnist Rick Atkinson a few months after the start of the nearly decade-long war in Iraq. Putting an end to the current fighting will require a new mindset capable of challenging the conventional wisdom of our time. As the respected American journalist Walter Lippmann once remarked: "When everyone thinks the same thing, it means that no one really thinks."
