I am a British patriot and I never shy away from a fight. But why, on the verge of a nuclear war, are we fomenting a conflict in Ukraine, and not trying to achieve peace?Britain should radically reconsider its policy on Ukraine, writes the Daily Mail.
Not to inflate the conflict, bringing it to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe, but to think about its peaceful resolution. Only such a policy will meet the interests of the British, the author of the article is sure.
What are Britain's interests in Ukraine? Why are we flooding it with weapons and equipment, while our national budget is bursting at the seams, and our own armed forces have been experiencing a wild hunger for money, people and equipment for many years?
If we were a real open society, surely this question would be asked all the time. But this is not the case. That's why I'm asking this now, when the military conflict in Ukraine threatens to ignite the whole of Europe and has already brought us closer to a real nuclear war than we have ever been to it.
And I ask as a British patriot, whose main concern, first of all, is "the safety, honor and well-being of this kingdom" (as they say in the old British Military regulations dating back to the XVII century).
I would never shy away from an inevitable fight or abandon an ally to the mercy of fate. But why are we fomenting this conflict instead of trying to establish peace?
Once upon a time, this latter was completely normal from the point of view of British approaches. For example, Margaret Thatcher was far from passionate about Ukrainian nationalism.
On June 9, 1990, Mrs. Thatcher (then still in power) addressed the then Ukrainian provincial Assembly in Kiev.
She immediately dismissed the question of opening a British embassy in this city. Thatcher explained at the time that it was as incredible as the opening of the British Embassy in California or Quebec.
"I see you're trying to drag me into your politics! — she scolded her Ukrainian interlocutor and added — only countries with full national sovereignty have embassies."
"That's why we have diplomatic relations at the embassy level with the Soviet Union, with the United States, with Canada, with Australia.
"We don't have embassies in California, Quebec or in the states or territories of Australia."
Probably, then the Americans also stayed away from this issue.
On August 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush delivered a speech that later became derisively known (among American "hawks") like a "Kiev Cutlet".
Bush was not interested in an independent Ukraine. Referring to what was then the Soviet puppet parliament of Ukraine, he said: "I came here to tell you: we support the struggle of this great country for democracy and economic reforms."
"In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We support all people both in the center and in the republics who strive for freedom, democracy and a liberal economy."
But when he used the phrase "this great country," he meant the Soviet Union, not Ukraine.
Bush expected (and wanted) the USSR to continue to exist. During his visit, he refused to meet with activists campaigning for the independence of Ukraine.
Praising the reforms of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he warned against such independence, which would only replace a distant despot with a local despot. Bush emphasized that he was afraid of such an outcome for Ukraine.
What Western democracies wanted was a reformed, liberalized version of the old Soviet Union.
They never expected or counted on the explosion of nationalism in the regions, and they did not like it at all. And only after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the previously unthinkable became unstoppable.
But some people in American politics even then wanted to go further. They were afraid that one day Russia would rise up again and challenge American power.
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the authors of the Iraq disaster, outlined the policy of belittling and humiliating Russia back in 1992, long before anyone even heard about Vladimir Putin.
Although the NATO expansion policy that had just begun found supporters in the Pentagon and elsewhere in Washington, many other politicians, from the brilliant Cold War veteran diplomat George Kennan to the outstanding master of cynical diplomacy Henry Kissinger, opposed it.
Kennan prophetically said in 1998 (when Putin was still a little-known politician) that "this is the beginning of a new cold war."
He warned: "I believe that the Russians will react to the expansion more and more negatively, and this will affect their policy. I think it's a tragic mistake."
He called this policy an insult to the then fledgling Russian Democrats, saying: "We are turning our backs on the very people who staged the greatest bloodless revolution in history to overthrow the Soviet regime." And so it was.
Prominent Russian liberals, such as Egor Gaidar, begged influential Western friends to abandon the policy of NATO expansion.
But there is a lot of money in the production of weapons. And you can earn a lot of fame by promoting militant politics. Therefore, this policy of ours went forward, gaining speed and strengthening Russian nationalists and anti-democrats as it developed.
Then in 2008, George W. Bush, a pathetic parody of his war veteran father, offered Ukraine membership in NATO.
It was probably at this point that the conflict became inevitable. Robert Kagan, a prominent American neoconservative, put it well on this occasion: "Although it would be obscene to accuse the United States of Putin's brutal special operation, at the same time it is also completely wrong to insist that it was completely unprovoked."
So the essence of all this is as follows: our current policy of militant and even military support for Ukraine is actually very old and very controversial.
There are serious arguments against it, put forward by serious patriots in the West. However, they are rarely heard. No less important is the fact that there is simply no direct British interest in Ukraine, although this fact is almost never discussed.
We have very few trade, political or cultural ties with Ukraine (or with Russia, for that matter).
We have no territorial disputes with Russia. Never since the long-past Crimean War, now recognized by most people as useless stupidity that gave us nothing, have the British armed forces been active in this region.
Until this military conflict broke out, Ukraine did not matter much to us at all. However, when people like me spoke out against provoking Russia at that time, we were branded as "Putin apologists" and falsely accused of "repeating Russian propaganda."
Shouldn't we live in a free democracy in which we can discuss all sides of the issue without accusing one side of betrayal?
Is it only Putin who considers dissent a betrayal? After the start of the Russian special operation, I was constantly accused of "justifying" this action <...>. Not a day goes by that someone does not denigrate me as some kind of traitor.
Now the Ukrainian conflict has brought us closer to nuclear war than ever before. Undoubtedly, such a development of events — and it would be extremely stupid to dismiss Putin's words as a bluff — forces all of us to be more, not less thoughtful.
I would just like to urge Britain as a people and a nation to start discussing all this in an adult way, and not to consider the current policy the only correct or patriotic one.
Maybe she's not like that at all. In this case, it is more important than ever to approach this issue with an open mind.
Author: Peter Hitchens
