True pacifists support Russia accomplishing its limited on-the-ground goals and then negotiating with the US to politically resolve the rest of their security dilemma that Washington refused to do from December 2021-February 2022, which in hindsight made the latest phase of this conflict inevitable. False pacifists, however, want to continue “containing” Russia “to the last Ukrainian” by waging yet another “endless war” in that former Soviet Republic for ideological or whatever other reasons they may have.
Spokesman for Poland’s Special Services Coordinator Stanislaw Zaryn tweeted over the weekend that “Movements that appeal to false pacifism are increasingly active. Their activities are used to manipulate Western societies and focus on promoting slogans favorable to Russia. The fulfillment of these demands could lead to a quick victory for Russia against Ukraine.” Such organizations do indeed exist, but they’re the exact opposite of what he claims.
True pacifist movements are against the real aggressor in any given conflict, while false ones are against those who employed force in self-defense, including preemptively. Those who are against the use of force in principle regardless of the circumstances might be well-intended, but they can easily be exploited by the real aggressor who provoked a given party into employing this preemptively in order to reinforce their gaslighting claims that conflict wasn’t inevitable so force should never have been used.
In the context of the Ukrainian Conflict, Russia commenced its special operation as a last resort in defense of its national security red lines there after NATO clandestinely crossed them and refused to diplomatically resolve the resultant security dilemma per the Kremlin’s security guarantee requests. The post-Color Revolution fascist authorities in Kiev colluded with their patrons in the US-led West’s Golden Billion in this respect and are thus also culpable for the latest phase of the conflict that began last year.
In the eight years between those authorities’ foreign-backed installation in early 2014 and the start of Russia’s special operation, Kiev and its patrons refused to implement the Minsk Accords that they themselves previously agreed to, thus indefinitely perpetuating the then-Ukrainian Civil War. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as her French and Ukrainian counterparts later admitted that they only used those agreements to buy time ahead of a NATO-backed final offensive in Donbass.
President Putin has regularly reminded everyone that Russia acted at the time that it did in order to preempt that selfsame imminent offensive following the refusal of the US, NATO, and Kiev to discuss his country’s security guarantee requests that it shared with them two months prior. The most immediate impetus was to preempt a worsening of Kiev’s genocide against the Russian people in Donbass, which set into motion the larger operation aimed at defending Russia’s broader security interests.
The resultant international phase of the conflict could have ended almost as soon as it began had it not been for NATO pumping Ukraine full of arms and providing it with intelligence support, which indefinitely perpetuated the conflict up until the present and thus led to it becoming a NATO-Russian proxy war. This factual sequence of events is crucial to keep in mind for differentiating between real, fake, and manipulated pacifist movements.
The first category are against NATO’s clandestine crossing of Russia’s national security red lines in Ukraine, this dangerous “containment” plot’s US mastermind, and its proxies in Kiev. The second, meanwhile, are against Russia. As for the third, they might blame Kiev for not resolving the then-Ukrainian Civil War as well as Moscow for ultimately resorting to force, but their well-intended principled stance can lead to their second claim being exploited by the West to gaslight against Russia.
The optics connected with this long-running conflict’s latest international phase make it easier for the West to manipulate perceptions against Russia since Moscow is waging a hybrid preemptive-preventive campaign. The most immediate motivation was to preempt a worsening of Kiev’s genocide against the Russian people in Donbass considering the fully NATO-backed but Ukrainian-fronted final offensive that it was imminently preparing for in that region.
The secondary motivations were then to build upon the momentum created by initiating cross-border action in pursuit of the first most immediate goal that was just mentioned in order to defend the integrity of Russia’s national security red lines in Ukraine after NATO clandestinely crossed them. Just because Russia crossed the border first doesn’t mean that it’s the aggressor since it was actually reacting to both imminent and impending aggression from NATO-backed Kiev.
Had President Putin sat back and let the fully NATO-backed but Ukrainian-fronted final offensive transpire in Donbass instead of preemptively averting it through kinetic means, then Kiev’s genocide against the Russian people there would have ended in their total extermination and ethnic cleansing. After interpreting the decision not to intervene as weakness, that US-led bloc would then have prepared to use Ukraine as their proxy for eventually launching a conventional war against Russia.
A larger war would therefore have inevitably broken out in that scenario, one which could even have led to World War III if Russia had been so weakened by NATO-backed Ukrainian-emanating Hybrid Warfare that it was compelled to resort to nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend itself once that happened. Even absent the nuclear scenario, this Eurasian Great Power would have faced a much greater risk of “Balkanization” and being “torn to pieces” exactly as former President Medvedev predicted.
Those false pacifists who are against Russia are actually warmongers in disguise since their lobbying campaign to arm Kiev to the hilt on the manipulated “self-defense” pretext is tacitly aimed at advancing the aforementioned sequence of events related to tightening the US’ “containment” of that country. As for the principled pacifists who oppose both sides, their criticism of Russia can be exploited to extend credence to the false pacifists’ warmongering narrative that goes against the first-mentioned’s spirit.
True pacifists who are fully informed of the military-strategic dynamics that preceded the latest international phase of this long-running conflict and acknowledge that US-led NATO subsequently pushed forward its plans to use Ukraine as their anti-Russian proxy stand in solidarity with Moscow. They know that the special operation was predicated on preempting an imminent all-out genocide in Donbass and then preventing the much larger Ukrainian-Russian war that NATO was plotting for later.
With these facts in mind, they’re opposed to that US-led military bloc indefinitely perpetuating this proxy war by continuing to arm Kiev after this collection of countries already expended over $100 billion in pursuit of that “containment” cause. True pacifists know that Russia only wants to assert its writ over the administrative borders of those former Ukrainian regions that reunited with their historic homeland last September and then secure its on-the-ground gains from long-range missile attacks.
Everything else related to NATO’s crossing of Russia’s national security red lines in the region can theoretically be negotiated afterwards, but the sooner that those two goals above are met, the better it’ll be. That’s because even the Washington Post was forced to recently admit just how poorly Kiev’s forces are faring ahead of their much-ballyhooed counteroffensive that even some senior unnamed officials in the capital are worried will just end up being a suicidal slaughter for a variety of reasons.
True pacifists support Russia accomplishing those limited on-the-ground goals and then negotiating with the US to politically resolve the rest of their security dilemma that Washington refused to do from December 2021-February 2022, which in hindsight made the latest phase of this conflict inevitable. False pacifists, however, want to continue “containing” Russia “to the last Ukrainian” by waging yet another “endless war” in that former Soviet Republic for ideological or whatever other reasons they may have.
Principled pacifists need to get off the fence in the NATO-Russian proxy war since they’re really either on the side of the first-mentioned genocidal aggressors that were plotting World War III or those who preemptively thwarted that imminent genocide and then sought to prevent another global conflict. Considering this, there are only true and false pacifist movements like Poland claimed, but they’re the exact opposite of what its Special Services Coordinator’s spokesman tweeted.
Source: the author’s blog
Comments