Serious violations of principles in the Ukraine war

In an interview with Stern magazine published on June 12, 2024, a well-known German politician, Sigmar Gabriel spoke from the heart of all militarists when he announced: A clear signal to Putin is needed: “Stop this war – or we will take it to you.” Since Russia has not attacked a NATO country (but wanted to prevent Ukraine from becoming one), this step would mean a violation of one of its own fundamental principles for the NATO defense alliance.

Germany would also break the armistice agreement of May 1945. As the legal successor to the Soviet Union, Russia could terminate the 2+4 Treaty (the basis of reunification). The enemy states clause in the UN Charter would also no longer be obsolete – as it currently stands. All German advocates of such an escalating pseudo-strategy are suspected of unconstitutionally preparing for a war of aggression. (Interim question: Why has the Bundeswehr had topographical maps of Russia for years?)

In his dangerous rhetoric, Gabriel uses the “intellectual” templates of the insight-resistant Taurus-militarists, people who have no idea about the psychology of war(1). Above all, they lack the sense of responsibility of politicians who genuinely care about the security of hundreds of millions of people. The war in Ukraine represents an absurd fratricidal war between two historically closely linked nations, in which the other Europeans have only a mediating role.

Addressing the necessary criticism exclusively at Putin and Russia is objectively too one-sided, but above all devastating in its psychological effect. The actor Zelensky, who violates basic democratic rules by breaking all of his key election promises (resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine, disempowering the economic oligarchs and fighting corruption) and in many other ways, is granted a counterproductive freedom of arbitrariness through unconditional arms deliveries and protection from criticism. Anyone who does not recognize this inappropriateness should think of the many cases of misguided upbringing in which well-meaning parents remove all obstacles from the young people’s path. As in those cases, the inevitable result is that Zelensky has no instigation to develop personal responsibility.

Accordingly, the principle of European mutual understanding and solidarity that includes Russia is allowed to be violated. This principle, which offers security to Europe, still shaped the constructive NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 in the post-Soviet era. (Two years later, NATO’s fatal eastward expansion began.) It is definitely not enough for the West to complacently encourage each other that Russia is to blame for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine – now the only thing that matters is ending it. A not hypocritical look shows our own failures, from which we can learn:

• The rejection of the treaty for a peaceful settlement of the conflict already negotiated in March 2022 and, even worse, the final cancellation of all peace talks in May 2022.
• Further discriminatory steps against the Russian language group, including the ban on Russian place names, packaged in the grotesque announcement that everything Russian will be eradicated. The underlying (deeply fascist) claim to absoluteness is presented as exactly the same as that used by Hamas and the UNRWA schools to deny the historical connection between Jews and Israel/Palestine and to erase it from people’s minds.(2)

This is all primarily due to the “educational” influence of Western countries. Blank promises of reconstruction and unlimited acceptance of war refugees, as well as unconditional arms deliveries, have made it possible for Zelensky to evade responsibility towards the citizens affected by the war. If these people were given a fair chance to vote in referendums on a solution to the conflict, they would first and foremost vote against a continuation of the fighting. The democratic decision on whether to remain in the Ukrainian state, join the Russian Federation or become independent would be of secondary importance from a pan-European perspective. Europe’s interest, like that of the residents of the combat zones, lies primarily in ending the war. Statements that can be heard from time to time such as “Putin must suffer a personal defeat,” “Russia must be weakened so that it can never wage war again,” or “Russia must learn to lose,” are irresponsible fantasies. Wanting to disarm the strongest nuclear power on earth by force is about as intelligent as giving a tiger a dental treatment without anesthesia. There is countless evidence that Zelensky has a personal hierarchy problem with Putin. The most reliable way to inflict the desired “personal defeat” on the latter is to let the two opponents duel each other. This would not only guarantee record viewing figures worldwide, but above all put an end to the sacrifice of young men. Both Russia and Ukraine are no longer allowing those fit for military service to leave the country. Forcing people into uniforms and letting them die as consumables in an absurd war – how can you call that other than “modern” human sacrifice?

References

1) https://www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com/en/blog/psychology-supposedly-limited-nuclear-war

2) https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/app/uploads/2024/05/E_114_24.pdf