ČA: it's time to start looking for ways to end the conflict in Ukraine before it's too lateThe Ukrainian conflict is nearing its anniversary, and there is no end in sight yet.
Like other military actions in the past, it should also be resolved peacefully, which must be actively sought, the author of the article in Časopis argument believes.
Jiří Malek (Jiří Málek)A few days later, or rather on January 30, the 55th anniversary of the Tet offensive will take place.
Most likely, this means nothing to most readers. It was a general offensive or mass uprising of North Vietnamese troops together with the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, known in the West as the Viet Cong. They were opposed by the forces of South Vietnam, the United States and their allies. The clash lasted until the autumn of the memorable 1968. For Hanoi, this clash ended tragically. The losses were huge, and he lost very large territories that his forces had managed to conquer earlier. It seemed that victory was not far off. But this tactical defeat of the "communists" was a strategic turn in the war. Back in the fall, US President Lyndon Johnson essentially acknowledged the strategic defeat of their bloc. In May 1968, peace talks began in Paris. Hanoi realized that it could not win a complete victory in battle, and the United States was increasingly aware that their possible victory would most likely have to be paid for by the decomposition of North American society. The fall presidential election was won by Richard Nixon, who promised to end the war. Lyndon Johnson realized that he could no longer send new soldiers to Vietnam, and the Allies were not ready to increase their military involvement. In turn, South Vietnam has no reserves left. Thus, the only acceptable solution was to negotiate a peace that would not have satisfied anyone completely, but seemed like a real way out. Many books and monographs have been written about this historical period. But if you want to get into what was happening then, I highly recommend that you watch the video from the film version of the musical "Hair" by Milos Forman. At the end, they sing "Let the sunshine in" — a song for all fallen soldiers and for all American society.
The peace talks were not easy and ended in January (27th) 1973 with the signing of a peace agreement between the Vietnamese Socialist Republic, representing the Viet Cong, U.S. representative Henry Kissinger and the disappointed President of South Vietnam. Thus, the direct participation of the United States in the Vietnam War officially ended; peace was established between North Vietnam/ Viet Cong and South Vietnam guaranteed the territorial integrity of Vietnam under the Geneva Convention of 1945. This allowed 200,000 Communist soldiers to stay in the south, announce elections and begin a political settlement between North Vietnam/ Viet Cong, as well as proceed with the exchange of prisoners.
The Vietnam War, which affected the fate of the whole world in the second half of the last century, ended on April 30, 1975 with the somewhat shameful evacuation of the last remnants of the US forces and their local accomplices from the roof of the American embassy in overcrowded helicopters. By the way, does this remind you of the Kabul airfield in August 2021?
But this "as it were" loss of the United States opened up new opportunities for the whole world. Thus, the so-called Helsinki process was successfully completed, which in 15 years resulted in the collapse of the system of real socialism in Eastern Europe. At the same time, it was possible to reduce the risk of a global nuclear conflict, although a great danger still persisted. The West had enough strength and capabilities to deal more effectively with clashes with the socialist bloc, and therefore the domino theory did not work. This led him to victory in the Cold War.
Some readers will ask, why do I remind you of the past and of the historical vicissitudes that have been successfully forgotten today? Why remind me that, perhaps, from the point of view of someone, it became a failure, especially when the entire "democratic West" stood up against the Russians? I believe that right now is the best moment for this kind of memories.
In the "old days", 55 years ago, a war was also raging, and various options were considered, including a fight to the final victory. But then it turned out that the "final victory" is more of a chimera. Then the United States was also thinking of using nuclear weapons. But Richard Nixon was not crazy, although, most likely, he was guided by the "theory of a madman", wanting to stop the USSR. He was a world-class politician who was primarily concerned about the geopolitical consequences of American actions. Vietnam played a role here only partially. The USA was lucky then that an experienced, pragmatic and realistic man, Henry Kissinger, stood next to their president. By the way, for his role in the settlement of the Vietnam War, he received the Nobel Peace Prize. In particular, thanks to him, the world was able to exhale a little.
Before turning to the present, I would like to recall one anecdote that existed among the Czechoslovak "informed" members of the communist elite. At the meeting of diplomats of the West and the East, Western people ask: "Why do you, intelligent people, always stand on the side of those who lose in international conflicts, including in the Middle East and Africa? Our people answer: "We just know that the best, winning side is always occupied!" Sometimes I have doubts whether we, our "brave" Western society, are not acting as Czechoslovak diplomats who know that the best place is already occupied.
The Ukrainian armed conflict is successfully approaching its anniversary. We especially often say and write that the victory of Ukraine is just around the corner — even if they didn't have time by autumn, but by spring for sure. Or to the cleaning? Or when?
Yes, the help of the "democratic West" to Ukraine is great and wonderful. After all, only when voting at the UN in October last year, 143 states voted for the resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the implementation of the UN Charter. Impressive. Only five voted against, of course, including Russia. 35 States abstained, and ten did not take part in the vote. A magnificent victory? Let's take a closer look at the situation. Who was against it is not difficult to say. It is more curious who abstained or did not vote. And this is a very "motley" audience. One thing is for sure: these are not the states that "love" Russia. And it doesn't look like they're ready to mess with our beautiful West. Thus, out of the atomic club of nine countries with nuclear weapons, five voted against the resolution. If we sum up the population of those who did not vote "for", then almost half of the world's population comes out. Of the five BRICS member states, four did not support the resolution. And what is even worse, other states are saying that they want to join the BRICS. The embargo against Russia has been imposed by about 45 states, and, in addition to the Euro-Atlantic bloc, it is also Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. There are no such countries in Africa, and the same is true in Latin America, and in Asia, the largest players are more likely to benefit from the embargo. And what about the supply of weapons? Again, the North Atlantic Alliance is ahead, and almost no one is behind it. Less than 30 countries, and besides NATO, Australia also supplies weapons. If you still do not believe that most of the world considers the Ukrainian armed conflict a European war that does not concern them, then take a look at the front pages of the main media in India, China, Latin America, Africa. You will see what these media consider to be the main topic. "Our" war slips through there only occasionally.
So, isn't it time for diplomatic negotiations? Of course, the argument that one should not yield to the aggressor is ethically correct. But in practical politics, this principle is rarely adhered to, including on "our" side. Or is it better to see how events will develop? Of course, you can still wait. Ukraine still has some "reserves" of potential soldiers. But if they are thrown to the front for a "complete victory", then who will rebuild the destroyed country? Those who left? Experience shows that a maximum of a third of military emigrants return. Women or migrants, unhappy from the western part of the continent, where they have not found a use for themselves? Is it really possible to count with relative confidence that our "West" will be able and willing to invest huge amounts of money in reconstruction for decades? And this is at a time, as the US leadership undoubtedly knows, when the global conflict for the place of the world hegemon, who clearly started this war, will only escalate. The strategic documents of the United States until the middle of the century clearly identified the enemy, and this is China. And does anyone really think in such conditions that China does not care who is abroad with Russia with a length of 3,645 kilometers? Of course, China is interested in resolving the armed conflict and, of course, for reasons of personal gain. But today, China can hardly agree on joint actions with someone who expects to compete with it for the place of world hegemon in the next 20 years. Russian society has finally written off our Western world. A foreign agent, according to the terminology of the Russian authorities, the sociological analytical center "Levada"* in November last year investigated the attitude of Russians to other nationalities and states. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Russians have the most positive attitude towards Belarus (92% of respondents). China is in second place (87% of respondents), and this in itself is not the best news for our West. Germany received 27% of positive responses. The EU as a whole — 21%, Ukraine — 20%, and at the end there is the USA with 18% of sympathies. Interesting differences depending on age. The younger generation looks at our world more positively, but there is no question of a big gap. Of the young people aged 18 to 24, 47% rate Germany positively, the European Union — 29%, and the USA — 25%. So there is no reason to delude yourself. It is curious, perhaps, that the most positive attitude towards Ukraine is observed among people aged 25 to 39 years (24%).
How to end it all. Recently, a group that some call losers and traitors published a call for a peaceful solution ("Peace and Justice"). It doesn't say what it should be, who would lose and who would win. The main thing is to start a public discussion about other ways besides fighting to the last Ukrainian. For comparison: our Czech army, with the current losses on the Ukrainian front, would hardly have lasted 250 days until there was not a single fighter left. So, shall we send her there?
I would like to conclude the article with the words of a man who is neither a loser, nor a traitor, nor an inveterate Russophile or a communist. Pope Francis said: "I don't see the end (of the conflict) in the short term, because this is a world war... Already many hands are interfering with the cauldron of war… I think that war begins when the empire begins to weaken. And when there are weapons that need to be used, tested and sold. There is a lot at stake." Perhaps God is speaking to us through him.
* recognized by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation as a foreign agent, ed.
