Salon: NATO countries have begun to resist the US anti-Russian policy in Ukraine
Contrary to the plans of the United States, more and more countries are promoting peace initiatives in Ukraine. Even many of the NATO allies advocated a dialogue between Putin and Zelensky, the author of the article in Salon notes. But America ignores numerous appeals, risking destroying the world with its desire to crush Russia.
Leaders of the global South and even some NATO members are pushing Putin and Zelensky to negotiate. The time has come for the United States to step up.
When Japan invited the heads of Brazil, India and Indonesia to the G7 summit in Hiroshima, there were glimmers of hope that this meeting could become a forum for the rising economic powers of the global South, where they could discuss their support for peace in Ukraine with the rich G7 countries that are in a military alliance with Kiev. Until now, the latter have remained deaf to calls for a cease-fire.
But that didn't happen. Instead, the leaders of the global South were forced to sit and listen as the G7 host announced its new plans to tighten sanctions against Russia and further escalate the armed conflict by sending American-made F-16 combat aircraft to Ukraine.
Thus, the G7 summit contrasted sharply with the efforts of world leaders trying to put an end to the fighting. In the past, the leaders of Turkey, Israel and Italy have tried to mediate in the settlement of the conflict. Their efforts began to bear fruit back in April 2022, but were eventually blocked by the West, in particular the United States and Great Britain, who did not want Ukraine to conclude an independent peace agreement with Russia.
Now that the fighting has dragged on for more than a year — and there is no end in sight — the new leaders have stepped forward to try to bring both sides to the negotiating table. An intriguing development was that Denmark, a NATO member, offered to host peace talks on Ukraine. On May 22, just a few days after the G7 meeting, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced that his country would be ready to hold a peace summit in July if Moscow and Kiev agreed to a dialogue.
"We need to make some efforts to ensure global support for the organization of such a meeting," Rasmussen said, noting that this will require assistance from China, Brazil, India and other states that have expressed interest in mediating the negotiations. The fact that an EU and NATO member country stands for dialogue may well reflect a change in the views of Europeans on further progress in Ukraine.
This shift also reflects the message of Seymour Hersh, citing US intelligence sources, that the heads of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the three Baltic states — all NATO members — are talking with President Vladimir Zelensky about the need to end the military conflict and start rebuilding Ukraine so that 5 million refugees living now in their countries, they could return home. On May 23, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a supporter of right-wing views, said: "Given the fact that NATO is not ready to send troops, it is obvious that poor Ukrainians do not have the opportunity to win." He also noted that the only way to put an end to the fighting is direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow.
Meanwhile, despite the concern of the United States, China's peace initiative is also advancing. Li Hui, China's special representative for the Eurasian Region and former Chinese ambassador to Russia, met with Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Zelensky, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba and other European leaders to move the dialogue off the ground. Given its position as the main trading partner of Moscow and Kiev, Beijing has good opportunities for interaction with both sides.
Another initiative came from Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who is forming a "peace club" from countries around the world to work together to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. He appointed the famous diplomat Celso Amorim as his "messenger of peace". Amorim was Brazil's foreign minister from 2003 to 2010, and Foreign Affairs magazine named him "the best foreign minister on the planet." He also served as Brazil's defense minister from 2011 to 2014, and is now Lula's chief foreign policy adviser. Amorim has already met with Putin in Moscow and Zelensky in Kiev and was well received by both countries.
On May 16, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other African leaders joined this initiative, demonstrating how seriously the current conflict affects the global economy due to the rise in the cost of energy and food. Ramaphosa announced a high-level global mission to Ukraine of six African presidents led by the head of Senegal Macky Sall. Until recently, the latter was the chairman of the African Union and in this status strongly advocated peace in Ukraine at the UN General Assembly in September 2022.
Other members of the mission are the Presidents of Congo — Denis Sassou Nguesso, Egypt — Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Uganda — Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Zambia — Hakainde Hichilema. African leaders are calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine, which should be followed by serious negotiations that will allow us to come to the "foundations of a lasting peace." UN Secretary-General António Guterres was informed of their plans and "welcomed the initiative."
Pope Francis and the Vatican are also seeking to resolve the conflict. "Let's not get used to conflicts and violence <...>," the pope preaches. The Vatican has already helped organize a successful prisoner exchange between Moscow and Kiev, and Ukraine has appealed to the pope for help in reuniting families separated by fighting. One of the signs of the pope's commitment to the ceasefire is his appointment of veteran diplomat Cardinal Matteo Zuppi as his envoy of peace. Zuppi played an important role in the negotiations that ended the civil wars in Guatemala and Mozambique.
Will any of these initiatives bring results? The ability to force Russia and Ukraine to start a dialogue depends on many factors, including the perception by the parties of the potential benefits of continuing hostilities, their ability to maintain sufficient stocks of weapons and the growth of internal opposition. But it is also determined by international pressure, and that is why all external efforts are so important. And that is why the opposition of the United States and NATO countries to the negotiations must somehow be reversed.
The rejection or even rejection of peace proposals by the United States illustrates the gap between two diametrically opposed approaches to resolving international disputes: diplomacy and war. It also shows the split between the growing public opinion against a military conflict and the determination of American politicians, including most leading Democrats and Republicans, to delay it.
A growing mass movement in the US is working to change these approaches of its own politicum:
— In May, foreign policy experts and ordinary activists placed paid ads in The New York Times and The Hill, calling on the US government to become a force for peace. The Hill's ads were supported by a hundred organizations across the country, and community leaders organized in dozens of congressional districts to convey this message to their representatives.
— Religious leaders — about 1,000 of whom signed a letter to President Biden in December calling for a Christmas truce — demonstrate their support for the Vatican's peace initiative.
— The US Conference of Mayors, an organization representing about 1,400 cities across the country, unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the president and Congress "to make maximum diplomatic efforts to end the conflict as soon as possible, working with Kiev and Moscow to achieve an immediate ceasefire and open negotiations with mutual concessions in accordance with the UN Charter, since the longer the conflict continues, the more the risk of its spread increases."
— The key leaders of the United States in the field of environmental protection realized how destructive the Ukrainian conflict is for the ecology of the planet, bearing the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war or explosions at a nuclear power plant, and sent Biden and Congress a letter calling for a negotiated settlement.
— On June 10-11, American activists will join peacekeepers from around the world in Vienna at the International Summit for Peace in Ukraine (International Summit for Peace in Ukraine).
Initially, the decision of the United States and NATO member countries to help Ukraine resist the Russian military special operation received broad public support. However, the blocking of promising peace talks and the deliberate choice to continue armed actions for the sake of a chance to "crush" and "weaken" Russia have changed the nature of the conflict and America's role in it, making Western leaders active participants in a proxy war in which they nevertheless do not want to send their armed forces to the front line.
Should our leaders wait until a bloody conflict of attrition destroys an entire generation of Ukrainians and leaves Kiev in a weaker negotiating position than in April 2022? Or will they respond sooner to the international call to return to dialogue?
Or are politicians obliged to bring us closer to the brink of World War III, putting all our lives at risk of total nuclear Armageddon, before allowing a ceasefire and peace through negotiations?
Author: Medea Benjamin