Search Results for: ukraine

I was happy to discuss Ukraine for an hour with Santita Jackson:

I hate to say I told you so. It’s obnoxious really. But sometimes it is an important point. In this case the point is this: the people who are always right about wars were right about the war in Ukraine, whereas the “experts” who are always on television and in government were, as usual, wrong.

Which of the following statements about the war with Russia comes closest to your personal views?

• Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war
• Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible

—

Gallup asked read more

By World BEYOND War We are heartened to learn that the U.S. government is communicating with the Russian government, and are only sorry that such a basic step seemingly required a presidential election, when a glance at the Doomsday Clock ought to have been sufficient. Having set the bar so low that speaking at all seems a tremendous accomplishment, we must nonetheless insist that the proper things be said, and be heard, and that they be followed with verifiable actions. The popular demand in Western media that Ukraine be listened to in, and be part of, any negotiations should be applauded, but radically expanded. The president of Ukraine is severely violating the rights of the people of Ukraine to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, conscientious objection, and the right to form political parties that represent their interests. He is preventing elections through the imposition of martial law. The nation of Ukraine is deeply divided in opinions, and those divisions often correspond with geographic locations. A majority of Ukrainians, according to polls — and despite crackdowns on speech that opposes warmaking — say they are open to peace negotiations that remove territory from Ukraine, something the President of Ukraine sides with a minority in opposing in the name of “democracy.” More Ukrainian voices than one should be at the negotiating table. In fact, not everything should be decided at a single negotiating table. Disputed territories should be permitted to determine their own fates through public referenda, to be overseen by authorities acceptable to all interested parties. The options available to them should include limited or complete independence from any existing nation. Such autonomy is critical to achieving a lasting and sustainable peace, as well as for diminishing the risk of world-engulfing nuclear war, as well as to restore some dignity to a vocabulary that it has been rendered disreputable around the world through a gargantuan feat of hypocrisy — the vocabulary of “democracy,” “nonviolence,” and “rule of law.” Also critical will be disarmament by all parties. And central to that must be restricting, if not scaling back, if not eliminating the reach of the world’s leading arms-dealing institution, NATO, which exists in gross violation of the United Nations Charter, and whose own rules forbid adding members without the uncoerced approval of all existing members. The acceptance of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO would have prevented the war in the first place, according to countless authorities, including the then-Secretary General of NATO. Peace negotiations in Ukraine would also be aided by, and in turn be of aid to, negotiations to take the steps recently promoted by the U.S. President, to cut military spending in half and get rid of nuclear weapons. These would be accomplishments worthy of the gratitude of all humanity. Nuclear  disarmament is required by law, and is readily available to negotiate or to begin unilaterally. When the United States engaged in unilateral disarmament under Presidents John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, Russia quickly reciprocated. Negotiated multi-party disarmament has worked in the past and can work now — even more easily, given the extent to which surveillance technology has made cheating more difficult. Of course, this agenda is at odds with President Trump’s demand for dramatically increased military spending, with the reconciliation legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress to dramatically increase military spending, with the ongoing U.S.-led nuclear arms race, with the new nuclear bombs being deployed by the United States in Europe, and with Trump’s penchant for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. We support the peace agenda and condemn the war agenda, regardless of them both coming out of the same mouth. We also support the frequent expression of care for the lives of those being senselessly slaughtered in Ukraine and would like to see it acted on in Ukraine and applied equally to the rest of the world. We also support the frequent expression of concern for not wasting money, yet — thus far — denounce the actions that have been defended by that rhetoric, as they have mostly been unlawful, immoral, destructive, and hypocritical. Trump was elected speaking against wars and corruption. We would like to cheer for the ending of wars and the targeting of corruption in its headquarters in the Pentagon — and we will do so the minute we see those things happen.

One of the most impressive things about U.S. elections always appears to be the way in which the 96% of humanity outside of the United States consents to doing nothing at all for the better part of a year, so that U.S. media outlets can focus fulltime on the election. Of course, it could be that this, like much else in U.S. elections, is a bit of an illusion.

The highlights of the recent debate would seem to be, from the discussion that has followed:

1. an aging fascist buffoon falsely claiming that a group of people he’s demonizing wants to eat your pets — the wrong kind of animals, you should be serving the livestock industry that is helping render the Earth uninhabitable — and
2. the same racist nitwit fumbling around about having “concepts of a plan” for healthcare — but please pay no attention to the healthcare solution long since found by every other wealthy nation on the planet and shunned by both major political cartels in Washington.

And yet, the most significant bit of the debate read more

Here’s a list produced by a Ukrainian group with limited knowledge of the United States, a group that is listed as an “Implementing Partner” of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services (TAPAS) Project.

I find it unfortunate to read my name on a list of supposed opponents of something good for Ukraine, because I wish everyone in Ukraine peace, safety, freedom, and prosperity. The sole criterion for the read more

You may have heard that the U.S. Congress is finally doing the decent, moral, liberal, democratic, Democratic thing and aiding Ukraine.

You may believe, as pretty much everyone I ask tells me, that there was only one other choice available, namely “letting Putin win.”

You may agree with me that the Russian government and its leader — like every government I’ve ever heard of — have done horrendous things, that invading a country militarily is one of the worst things that can ever be done read more

Are you a network television executive, a newspaper editorial board member, a good citizen who obeys the President of the United States, or perhaps you are the President? Do you want to support negotiated compromise in Ukraine after having spent many months denouncing compromise as the treasonous work of Putin-funded commies? You’ve come to the right place. These methods have been used with great success by your peers for over a century. They are offered free and confidentially, with satisfaction read more

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, November 12, 2023

AUDIO:

VIDEO:

TV News Video.

News Report.

TEXT:

Nothing in my lifetime has done more to increase the risk of nuclear apocalypse than the war in Ukraine. Nothing is doing more to impede global cooperation on climate, poverty, or homelessness. Few things are doing as much direct damage in those areas, devastating the environment, disrupting grain read more