In the crosscurrents of news coverage, there are important events that go overlooked and false events that appear real and far more important than they are. The Russian invasion of Ukraine after the the fall of the Russian puppet
Victor Yanukovich was a real event. Russia moved to swallow-up an important, burgeoning Democracy. It invaded the Crimea, ran phoney elections, annexed the Peninsula, and began a military buildup to invade the rest of Ukraine. The world stood by without armed resistance, however, under the leadership of Barack Obama, began a
remarkable battle plan to stop and reverse a brutal conquest. This strategic rather than military initiative opens an intriguing possibility, that after thousands of years, people have begun to use rational processes to resolve conflict rather than brute force and killing.
War Is Simply Too Much
For any circumstance, except to repel an armed invasion, war is a poor weapon. It is meant to achieve one objective: killing indiscriminately and in large numbers. It is too broad; it is a blunderbuss when one needs a laser point. In Iraq, for example, the phrase collateral damage became a heartless euphemism for destruction of innocent human life. Collateral circumstances arose in the form of civil war and incredibly vicious sectarian attacks. Minimal estimates declare more than 100,000 perished in the civil conflicts.
Among recent examples of U.S. resistance to aggression, war has been selectively used and essentially politically motivated. Iraq was initiated for profiteering and oil, and Afghanistan,the longest U.S. war. carried out as an appearance, a feigned pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. invaded Iraq and poised itself to obtain vast amounts of oil reserves. The premise for the invasion was a false claim of self defense. The Bush Doctrine justified use of extreme force against any threat, real or imagined. While Iraq at the time was under intensive U.S. military monitoring, and had no ability to effect an attack on the U.S.; we perceived a threat. Despite the weight of reality, the U.S. leadership under George Bush initiated an invasion, toppled the Saddam regime, which led to a decade of bloody civil war. The U.S. lost nearly 5,000 dead and spent more than $2 Trillion dollars.
Iraq Is Evidence: War Solves Little
In the past weeks, we have seen the Iraq government fold under a relatively mild assault from a small band of insurgents. ISIS have been able to capture broad swaths of Iraq territory, major cities, and oil fields. It is an insurgent force that, while greatly outnumbered by Iraqi military resources, has essentially met little to no opposition. Iraqi military have surrendered the field and turned over vast amounts of arms and equipment to the insurgents. The U.S. war in Iraq ended with a apparently stable Iraq and a government which sought no further U.S. military assistance. After our military separation, poor management and divisive politics have produced a crippled State that cannot police its borders nor defend its people and resources. The use of U.S. overwhelming military force by the Bush Administration destroyed the balance of social and political factors that made Iraq a cohesive state, it now founders and can easily fall into radical control that will further destabilize an entire region.
War Is a Failure of Reason
The invasion of Ukraine once again highlighted the gross folly of warfare. The precipitous invasion threatened to immerse all of Europe in a bloodbath for reasons of personal vanity or mere political advantage. However, the military and diplomatic crises in Ukraine offered new opportunities to employ a modern age set of principles and strategies. It would be a battle of banks and privileges, an economic counter-attack to a brutal use of military force.It was bold and brilliant. This strategy used weapons that pierced deeply into the fragile shell of Russia, namely, its weak and needy economy. Run by oligarchs in key sectors, the Russian economy was interconnected with dependencies in Central Europe and to varying degrees much of the rest of the world. Using this new, policy-warfare, the allied West made piercing strikes into parts of the economic body of Russia that were vital and vulnerable.
It consisted of precision movements: a strike into the oil sector, a dramatic loss of equity in the Russian stock market, denial of international monetary and credit privileges for key Russian Banks, personal restrictions on economic access and travel for key players in the Putin Regime. A strategic boycott of an
annual economic development summit deprived the Russian economy of its Black Friday - when so many large international transactions were usually consummated that the balance of the year was in the black. The
results of the economic sanctions, joined by a solid alliance of Western Europe have been devastating to Russia. While not harmful to its average citizens, it was devastating to the national programs for economic growth. The power of the approach was always that there was a next, more severe, level, and that the pressures and deprivations would inexorably increase.
The Obama Doctrine- Punish Aggression with Precision
The selective use of force as secondary to diplomatic and economic measures can be called the Obama Doctrine. In it evolution, it has ushered-in a new possibility for managing conflict. It offers a potential for rationalizing much of the world's conflicts to avoid armed confrontation. Those nations which are invested in the global economy can no longer afford to pause for intervals of warfare. The U.S. experience has shown those who will learn, that war is impossibly expensive and largely un-winnable. We have Afghanistan and Iraq to offer as cases in support of the cautionary message of modern history. War is only profitable to the war machine, and they have learned to profit from not fighting as much as fighting. The F-35 fighter at $125 million per plane is the current U.S. answer to ghosts of terrorists with box cutters and plane tickets. Somehow, the math does not favor us, and we still spend more than the next 10 nations combined in defense.
Stepping Back From The Brink
Share the perspective of a Ukrainian citizen watching as the Nation fell into a leaderless state through the demonstrations and bloodshed in Euro Maiden in Kyev, then to the menace of Russian Invasion. With the loss of Crimea and city after city Russian thugs fomenting civil uprisings, the military buildup on the borders clearly indicated imminent invasion and war with Russia. They knew the West wanted a deeper relationship but they also knew the West would not send troops and initiate a land war with Russia. In City after city, paramilitary groups took action and there seemed no escape from the inevitable- bloodshed and conquest. Obama began his leadership with powerful sanctions, few believed it could stop the onslaught and as sanctions took hold and increased, the curious present state began to form. Russia stopped, then pulled back; as the united block of U.S. and Western Europe tightened the screws on the Russian economy. There was a growing realization, Ukraine does not stand alone. Following new national elections, resumption of political and diplomatic relations with Russia and the West. Ukraine has achieve political stability and the elusive
trade agreement with the West.
A Delicate But Hopeful Balance
The Ukraine now sits in a delicate balance, there are still elements of the Russian subterfuge, still hostilities and remnants of the Russian takeover. Crimea has been lost for the time being and its future is still a target of ongoing sanctions. Moldova and Georgia have joined with Ukraine in opening trade to the West, and the Eastern European region generally braces for economic and social change, not all of which is welcome.
Inside Ukraine, there are pockets of peace and unrest. The still young movement towards greater democracy still requires nourishment and care. A nation must build democratic infrastructure; it must find its many voices of democratic communication.
A Small Step For A Nation, A Giant Leap For Mankind
Someday when the U.S. recovers from a drunken madness of right-wing-delirium about guns and bloodshed, we may look back with a distinct sense of pride and accomplishment. The small step towards alternatives to mass slaughter, in an age in which we reached a peak in the ability to inflict death and destruction, was truly amazing. The U.S. has stopped abruptly from an inertia of multiple fronts of war on an on-going basis. We moved from an unlimited commitment essentially to fight every hostile nation in the middle-east, Asia, South America, and Africa and moved instead onto a path of non-lethal warfare and peace. We can pursue conflict resolution without military means.
To be sure, the bristling level of armaments of the U.S. military are an essential part of diplomacy. But one cannot be blind to the fact that military strength does not stop every attack, and war does not solve the problems that give rise to conflict.There is more hope for the future when mankind can devote resources to solving common problems that threaten the global future well-being rather than engaging in warfare and destruction of life.
