The media war accompanying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with western politicians entering ‘war mode’ where words are used as weapons rather than to enlighten, has had highly negative consequences.
The war of words that came with the crisis in Ukraine have obscured more than they have revealed and I believe the evidence is that they have helped in extending this war and its casualties while constantly pushing back the time when peace negotiations could begin. This has resulted in an almost endless tragedy for Ukraine and the families on both sides who have lost loved ones who may not have died if the war of words had not been so fierce.
There has been a constant unwillingness by western news media and political spheres to honestly state the facts on both sides of this conflict and this since it began in 2014 with the Maidan insurrection. Brave men and women have died as a direct consequence of this unwillingness, an unwillingness that continues until today, though signs do now exist that a greater willingness to confront reality is at last emerging.
The crucial factor that lies at the heart of the issue described above is that of the conflict between rhetoric and reality which has had the effect, via the western news media and general political milieu concerning the war that has directly contributed to its prolongation. This factor is complemented, and to a degree explained, by yet another factor, the constant transmission of uninspected conclusions vs. known facts.
One of the main uninspected conclusions around which much rhetoric is based is that Russia wishes to take all of Ukraine, thereby totally eliminating it as a state.
The notion that Russia wants to ‘eliminate’ Ukraine cannot be substantiated by anything the inspection of the historical record of the conflict shows us.
This conclusion, that Russia has the intention to totally eliminate the nation known as Ukraine is based upon suppositions largely based upon long-term Ukrainian rhetoric reflected within news media and political statements in the West.
If we look at the known facts that dispute this contention of Russia’s desire to eliminate Ukraine entirely they are these:
1. Russia worked within the Minsk process for over six years, a process whose goal was to maintain the Donbass region within Ukraine but with enough autonomy to guarantee the security of the Russian-speaking majority and their culture of choice.
2. Russia chose to engage in talks with the Ukrainians very soon after its invasion of Ukraine. As far as we know from an official Ukrainian source who attended the Minsk and Istanbul negotiations his team was surprised at the modesty of Russian demands, they sought a conclusion that would deliver Ukraine agreeing to remain outside the NATO alliance and little else. All other factors regarding Crimea and the two republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were to be negotiated by the respective leaders of each nation at a later date.
3. Russia’s initial goals for its operation in Ukraine were made clear right at its start:
a. Ukraine never to join NATO.
b. The demilitarisation of Ukraine (max. 30,000 troops.)
c. The denazification of Ukraine.
d. Winning the future security of the Russian-speaking majority in the Donbass.
4. There was no goal that Ukraine was to be eliminated. Those who have come to this conclusion arrive at it through supposition only. It was certainly not a goal stated by any Russian authority. To call it a ‘maximalist’ goal is clearly an assertion based on factors other than observable evidence. It is at worst sloppy thinking and should not have any place in any truly reasoned analysis. The most likely source of such a conclusion lies in the general thrust of Ukrainian and western propaganda, not in any evidential factor.
In relation to point 4. above, Professor John J. Mearsheimer, expert in ‘Great Power Politics’ has, since 2016 talked of one major consequence of the push to have Ukraine join NATO, that being the destruction of Ukraine by Russia. This, he points out, is a likely consequence of Russia’s reaction to what it sees as the existential threat to it of NATO’s approach. However, points 1 and 2 above show that Russia’s intent for its operation was minimalist in nature. This is shown by several areas of fact:
The Minsk Process
Russia attempted to avoid conflict for at least six entire years and even after its invasion it sought to draw it to an early conclusion. With its intentions on both occasions clearly thwarted it is clear it had no other feasible choice but to continue its operation up to the point where the Ukrainians agreed to once again agree to negotiations with a view to ending the war.
Negotiations Immediately After Russia’s Operation Began
As spoken of in point 2. above Russia chose to engage the Ukrainians in peace negotiations soon after its invasion, first in Minsk then later in Istanbul. The modesty of its demands surprised the Ukrainian delegation according to one of its leading negotiators, this primarily being that Ukraine give up its aim to join NATO. Almost all else was to be negotiated between the two leaders at a later date.
Russia Constantly Playing Catch-up
It should be clear to all that Russia was in catch-up mode for almost the entire period of its operation, the intent of which I would argue is clearly merely to have the Ukrainians return to the negotiating table. Over time, as it became clear to all and sundry that the Ukrainians, in combination with the western powers, had committed to fight to the maximum of their combined potential, only then did Russia begin to slowly and incrementally enlarge its forces and the scope of their battle plans.
Apart from all of the above it is inconceivable that Russia would want to take on itself the onerous task of governing the Ukrainian-speaking people of western Ukraine. By occupying the entirety of Ukraine (required for the elimination of the nation known as Ukraine) the Russian authorities know what kind of Pandora’s Box of horrors that would entail.
The evidence of our eyes and knowledge of events on the ground shows us that there was never a Russian goal to ‘eliminate’ Ukraine as a nation by occupying it in its entirety. At the very least it is clear that Russia certainly did not start this war with any conception that they could ‘eliminate’ Ukraine. If this was its desire it came extremely badly prepared to do this. A relatively small force went into Ukraine initially, it appears with the direct goal of intimidating the Ukrainian leadership to return to the negotiating table. Only when it became abundantly clear that this was not going to happen and that the West was now seeking to actively undermine Russia through the agency of Ukraine did Russia begin building its forces and even now is not anywhere near the size that would be required to occupy Ukraine completely in order to ‘eliminate’ it. This idea should be completely removed from all discourse and analysis on the subject in my view.
Russia’s intent and the limits to that intent ought to be crystal clear and surely are for those with eyes to see. Those however, who remain committed to the project of undermining Russia through the agency of Ukraine will, without doubt, continue to try to muddy the waters of discourse through the use of distortions of reality. It appears that despite every indicator that their policy in Ukraine has utterly failed they will continue to do this to the bitter end and beyond. Such is the neocon mindset and such thereby is much of the essence that is the tragedy of Ukraine, a nation driven to virtual destruction through the blind ambition of non-Ukrainians determined to use them for their own geopolitical gain.
Source link
#RUSSIAS #GOALS #UKRAINE