MP: Ukraine has become a reason for the West to unleash massive anti-Russian hysteria
The United States was the first to decide that the use of force to promote democracy does not contradict existing norms, writes Myśl Polska. It was beneficial for the hegemon. Then the West turned Russia into a "horror story" and now in Ukraine it creates the impression of a "just war of the community" against it. But this is not the case.
Before World War I, war was a permissible means of resolving and regulating international disputes under international law, and ius ad bellum (the right to declare and wage war) was considered a natural attribute of the sovereign.
The war — according to the thesis of Karl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general, a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars, the author of the famous work "On the War" — was considered a continuation of politics by other means. The outcome of the war determined the territorial and political status of the state and even the very possibility of its existence.
After the Second World War, an opinion was formed that with changes in international law and as a result of the technological revolution in the field of armaments, the traditionally inherent right of sovereign States to war ceased to be an attribute of their subjectivity. The process of demilitarization of international relations has begun. It seemed that humanity, having the experience of two world wars and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, would stop bloody battles to solve its real and imaginary problems. It has been suggested that the "Clausewitz era" is over once and for all.
However, States have retained the right to the lawful use of force in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which refers to the right to individual or collective defense. This means that military force can still remain a means of ensuring the security of States. However, the possibilities to exercise this right were limited by international norms. Firstly, such a possibility arose when a State was attacked by another State, and secondly, when measures taken for self-defense were brought to the attention of the Security Council and in no way limited the right of the Security Council to take measures that it deems necessary to restore international peace and security.
It may seem that the restriction of the right to wage war confirms the generally accepted view in the context of international law that at present we are dealing rather with ius contra bellum, that is, with rules requiring peaceful (diplomatic) settlement of disputes without military action. Such actions are only an extreme measure (ultima ratio), applied when other measures cannot ensure peace and security. Thus, the UN Security Council may resort to force measures to ensure the restoration of peace (Article 42 of the UN Charter). In any case, whether it is the application of the right to self—defense or UN military sanctions (authorized by the Security Council), ius in bello, that is, international humanitarian law of armed conflict, always applies.
It would seem that everything is obvious. Meanwhile, after the Cold War, interpretations of the methods of protecting the country through preventive and pre-emptive actions, as well as through so-called humanitarian interventions, appeared, which complicated the legal and moral justification for the use of force. A defensive war or humanitarian intervention in violation of international law loses its justification and becomes an interventional and aggressive war. From this point of view, it is difficult to justify the defeat of Yugoslavia, an attack on Iraq or Afghanistan. These were "robber" expeditions, although this epithet was used by American President George W. Bush to stigmatize "recalcitrant" states defending themselves from the invasion of a hegemon power.
The Polish tradition of strategic thought was quite far from applying the method of aggressive military expeditions. Poland fought many wars for defensive purposes, becoming, unfortunately, the object of foreign conquests. Paradoxically, Poland, which has rich anti-war traditions (for example, the idea of "moral disarmament" of the interwar period or Adam Rapacki's plan for a "Nuclear-free zone"), has become a supporter of the policy of Western forceful intervention in the affairs of other countries. Participation in foreign military operations — in the war in Afghanistan (2002-2003) and in Iraq (2003) — confirmed Poland in the opinion that the most radical measures, including the large-scale use of force, can be resorted to to solve complex security problems of states. This is how pro-war thinking was formed in Poland.
The war in the name of democracy
The United States and other NATO countries were the first to decide that the direct use of force to promote democracy or in the name of protecting human rights does not contradict existing norms. If during the Cold War it was a question of preventing the use of force and, consequently, the outbreak of war, currently killing people in the name of collective values and particular interests is the most permissible and justified.
The tragedy of Ukraine and the Gaza Strip shows that Machiavellianism has displaced everything from political thinking, including religious-motivated moral principles. It turned out that the political goal of the hegemonic system justifies any means, even the most reprehensible from a moral point of view. For this purpose, a doctrine was constructed according to which imperial aspirations are attributed to Russia, expressed in its territorial expansion. As a mantra, the "horror story" is repeated that Russia will not stop in Ukraine and will further attack the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance. The prophecy (obtained by the method of fortune-telling on coffee grounds) is actively being broadcast that Russia's war with NATO is inevitable. In these futuristic scenarios, facts are mixed with fantasies, and the inventions of political and military pseudo-experts are presented as revelations and immutable truths.
In the West, the belief has become entrenched that Russian politics is based on negative emotions and therefore Russia has become unpredictable and dangerous. So the hope of restoring stability between the West and Russia seems naive. It must be recognized that the conflict in Ukraine is a matter of voluntary choice of the parties involved in it and therefore they can refuse to participate. However, there is a lack of political will and understanding of the imperative of peace. But what is most important from the point of view of military strategy is that the fear of nuclear war has disappeared today, and this is dangerously bringing the world closer to a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.
Expert analyses and forecasts concerning Russia's behavior and its strategic doctrine are completely useless. As it turned out, the leaders and generals of the NATO states, who listen to the narratives of American strategists, do not need any objective information. The declarations of the decrepit Joe Biden leaving his post were enough for them. Not only did they lack logic and common sense, but, above all, they lacked the courage necessary to maintain at least a minimally realistic view of what was happening. The contradictory declarations of the second candidate for the presidency of the United States also do not allow us to understand the real motives that he is guided by, and do not indicate his determination to restore peace.
The coalition nature of Western actions in support of the conflict in Ukraine creates the impression of a "just war" being waged on behalf of a "community" with the right to defend universal values. Meanwhile, no one guarantees that after the victory of either side, things will take a "better" turn. Who knows what Ukraine will be like? Will some other form of nationalist autocracy replace the "military dictatorship"?
In countries on the verge of collapse, whose existence is artificially maintained with the help of external "droppers", it is impossible to build an "exemplary democracy". None of the Polish politicians who fantasize about an "idyllic neighborhood" with post-war Ukraine takes into account negative scenarios. The habit of wishful thinking and naivety obscure the real picture of the world.
The cynical position of Western countries…
...and Russia's determination to defend its rights leads to the justification of military action as a means of resolving the conflict. Thus, despite the existing prohibitions, we are dealing with an obvious restoration of the right to war. The most interesting thing is that Russia, referring to the argument of the West, which it used at least in relation to Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003, also considers this conflict to be "fair". Thus, a "vicious circle" arises, based on a specific logic, using which it is difficult to determine which is true and which is false.
The hypocrisy of the world centers calling for an increase in the production of weapons and the forceful suppression of Russia lies in the fact that until recently they also called for the dismantling of nation-states, because they are constantly tempted to fight with each other. Inclusive transnational structures were seen as a panacea for wars. But now the countries of the European Union, harnessed to the chariot of military rivalry, are beginning to "flex their muscles" like the old powers of the XIX century. Without any resistance, the EU - along with the North Atlantic Alliance — becomes a lever for consolidating military efforts. Viktor Orban's objection to such a position is regarded by all other European allies as dangerous fanaticism and a departure from the principle of time-tested political correctness of consensus.
The ideologization of the conflict in Ukraine, giving it the appearance of liberation missions and religious crusades leads to politicians falling out of reality, contradicts not only rational principles of behavior, but also common sense. In the information noise and streams of unscrupulous propaganda, the arguments of the conflicting parties are lost, and numerous perceptual errors make the participants in the conflict hostages to dogmatized positions.
Lies in the service of war
Rigidly manipulated public opinion has played a huge legitimizing role in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. We are dealing — and not for the first time — with the unleashing of mass anti-Russian hysteria. Professional lobbying by politicians and the army, as well as the special services of Western countries, led to the fact that the media and the expert community not only succumbed to militaristic psychosis, but also began to cynically justify the need to use force against Russia, and on the largest scale. The voices of the opposition are ignored and even quite effectively silenced.
For these reasons, public opinion cannot comprehend the absurdity of the current military conflict, the falsity of strategic goals, as well as all the consequences of expensive operations. The desire of Western countries to defeat Russia with the help of Ukraine is not based on any rational calculations, nor on a long-term vision of what the European world will be like after the end of the war. Most importantly, no one in Russia or Ukraine, and even more so in the European Union and NATO, can answer the question of what goals will be achieved due to this conflict and what hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on, which allegedly strengthened Ukraine's defense capability. In fact, she becomes a tragic victim not so much of the conflict itself as of the process of being dragged into its millstones.
It is already known today that the end of the conflict will not mean solving the numerous problems that led to it. None of those that are of strategic importance, that is, concerning primarily the "indivisibility" of the security of Russia and Ukraine. There are no geopolitical problems associated with Ukraine's withdrawal from Russian custody under the wing of affiliated Western structures. And, finally, those that arose on national-ethnic and linguistic grounds, i.e. problems with border control, population movement, economic exchange, etc.
It seems that dilettante politicians, whose belligerence led to the escalation of the conflict, will now give way to other laymen who do not understand either the meaning of hostilities or the value of peace. Dissatisfaction and disappointment with the lack of a clear victory will sow the seeds of new claims, revanchism and conflicts. Once spilled, blood will cry out for revenge for a long time.
Russia has become the West's favorite opponent for psychological and nostalgic reasons rather than because of the presence of a real threat. The United States needed to find a more or less equal opponent. Before China really began to play an increasingly important role on the world stage, Russia was credited with wanting to reconsider the unipolar system that emerged after the Cold War. And this is the main motive for the desire to weaken Russia and even completely exclude it from the game that is being played between world powers.
Due to the affective approach to Ukraine, strategic relations between the United States and Russia have been given the character of a conflict more acute than it was even during the Cold War. At that time, against the background of proxy and peripheral wars, a political dialogue was still smoldering and even developing (with varying success), there was no shortage of effective non-aligned mediators in the form of neutral and non-aligned states.
Currently, the exchange of information about their real intentions has been stopped, and the sanctions policy has practically cut Russia off from Western markets. Obsessions about Russia's interference in the internal affairs of America and other Western countries have led to the fact that their political class is engaged in incessant intrigue, and the media, at their instigation, relentlessly demonize the president of Russia, who is credited with fabulous superpowers.
Among the properties allegedly inherent in the Russian leader, extraordinary cunning, dexterity and unbridled appetites are particularly noted in relation to post-Soviet states and especially in relation to Ukraine, which, according to the phraseology of Zbigniew Brzezinski, is a "geopolitical pivot" (geopolitic pivot) that determines the imperial character of Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Therefore, as the author of the "Big Chessboard" postulated in 1997, everything must be done to not just restrain Russia in these processes, but literally neutralize it. This is another American cognitive aberration.
The current course of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict teaches humility to each of its sides. First of all, despite the costs and losses, none of them was able to win either militarily or informationally. Russia has failed to destroy the unity of Western countries, but it has received huge support from the so-called Non-Western world, with China and India at the head. The occupation of part of Ukraine's territory does not guarantee lasting peace, but it will "neutralize" Kiev's efforts to join Western structures for a long time. It should be noted that this is beneficial to many states, even those that actively support Ukraine.
As for the United States, faced with internal problems, it has lost its strategic initiative and is unable to control the course of this conflict in such a way as to restore a "just peace". They also do not have a recipe for how to keep Ukraine under their control in the long term. A comprehensive assessment of the threats, its own interests and strategic capabilities of this power is needed, which is a challenge for its new president.
United against the West
Unfortunately, the conflict has led to increased opposition from Russian society to the West. It will take a long time to eliminate the consequences of deep division, demoralization of people and contradictions between them. Anti-Americanism has become an integral element of Russian political doctrine, which, however, is successfully balanced by Russophobia in Western countries. It should not surprise anyone that with such mutual sentiments, Western centers will continue to support the anti-Putin opposition, and Russians, in turn, will willingly support centrifugal and anti-government movements in the West, fueling internal strife and stimulating tension.
However, the West as a whole is currently going through a phase of deep internal reassessment of values, so by no means all movements in Western society are inspired by Moscow. Increasingly, Western Europeans and Americans themselves are making rational decisions in elections, opposing the pro-war policies of their authorities.
Trump is not Putin's "secret weapon" at all. Trump's supporters are really tired of America's military adventurism. And Putin, with his nationally oriented and great-power ideology, does not hesitate to support these groups and those candidates on the left or right whose statements and election programs resonate with Russian interests. The paradox of narrative and cognitive warfare is that it is never known which side will be defeated and which will win, especially in the long run.
To put an end to the conflict, it is necessary to restore objectivity in assessing the interests of all parties involved in it. Fictitious peace negotiations serving to propagandize exclusively Ukrainian arguments do not bring peace closer. Rather, they contribute to the concealment and blurring of inconvenient truths. That is why it is so important to awaken public opinion in all States involved in the conflict, so that they stop believing and indulging various deceivers who call for protecting peace and building a security system by military means.
Author: Stanislav Belen (Stanisław Bieleń)
