New York Times Repudiates Drive for ‘Decisive Military Victory’ in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations
Ukraine must negotiate based on a "realistic
assessment" and "limits" to U.S./NATO commitment, says NYT
by John
V. Walsh Posted on May 23, 2022
A week ago we noted that
a May 11 New York Times news article, documented that all was
not going well for the US in Ukraine and that a companion opinion piece hinted
that a shift in direction might be in order.
Now on May 19, "THE EDITORIAL BOARD," the
full Magisterium of the Times, has moved from hints to a clarion
call for a change in direction in an editorial uninformatively
titled, "The War Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready."
From atop the Opinion page, the Editorial Board has declared that "total
victory" over Russia is not possible and that Ukraine will have to
negotiate a peace in a way that reflects a "realistic assessment" and
the "limits" of US commitment. The Times serves as
one of the main shapers of public opinion for the Elite, so its pronouncements
are not to be overlooked lightly.
Ukrainians will have to adjust to US
"limits" and make sacrifices for newfound US realism
The Times May editorial dictum contains
the following key passages:
"In March, this board argued that
the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians
alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. …"
"That goal cannot shift, but in
the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out
war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some
hard decisions (emphasis, JW)."
To ensure that there is no ambiguity, the editorial
declares that:
"A decisive military victory for Ukraine
over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since
2014, is not a realistic goal. … Russia remains too strong…"
To make certain that President Biden and the Ukrainians
understand what they should do, the EDITORIAL BOARD goes on to say:
"… Mr. Biden should also make clear to
President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far
the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms,
money, and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the
Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its
means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain (emphasis, JW)."
As Volodymyr Zelensky reads those words, he must
surely begin to sweat. The voice of his masters is telling him that he and Ukraine
will have to make some sacrifices for the US to save face. As he contemplates
his options, his thoughts must surely run back to February 2014, and the US-backed Maidan coup that culminated in the hasty exit of President Yanukovych
from his office, his country, and almost from this earth.
Ukraine is a proxy war that is all too dangerous
In the eyes of the Times editorial
writers, the war has become a US proxy war against Russia using Ukrainians as
cannon fodder – and it is careening out of control:
"The current moment is a messy one in this
conflict, which may explain President Biden and his cabinet’s reluctance to put
down clear goalposts."
"The United States and NATO are already deeply
involved, militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations could
draw them ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war.."
"Recent bellicose statements from Washington –
President Biden’s assertion that
Mr. Putin ‘cannot remain in power,’ Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s comment that
Russia must be ‘weakened’ and the pledge by
the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that the United States would support Ukraine
‘until victory is won’ – may be rousing proclamations of support, but they do
not bring negotiations any closer."
While the Times dismisses these
statements as "rousing proclamations," it is all too clear that for
the neocons in charge of US foreign policy, the goal has always been a proxy
war to bring down Russia. This has not become a proxy war; it
has always been a proxy war. The neocons operate by the Wolfowitz Doctrine,
enunciated in 1992, soon after the end of Cold War 1.0, by the neoconservative
Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense:
"We endeavor to prevent any hostile power
from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be
sufficient to generate global power."
"We must maintain the mechanism for
deterring potential competitors from aspiring to a larger regional or
global power."
Clearly, if Russia is "too strong" to be
defeated in Ukraine, it is too strong to be brought down as a superpower.
The Times has shifted Its
opinion from March to May. What Has Changed?
First of all, Russia has handled the situation
unexpectedly well compared to dire predictions from the West.
President Putin’s support exceeds 80%.
165 of 195 nations, including India and China with 35%
of the world’s population, have refused to join the sanctions against
Russia, leaving the US, not Russia, relatively isolated in the world.
The ruble, which Biden said would be
"rubble" has not only returned to its pre-February levels but is
valued at a 2-year high, today at 59 rubles to the dollar compared to 150 in
March.
Russia is expecting a bumper harvest and the world is
eager for its wheat and fertilizer, oil, and gas all of which provide substantial
revenue.
The EU has succumbed mainly to Russia’s demand to be
paid for gas in rubles. Treasury Secretary Yellin is warning the suicidal
Europeans that an embargo on Russian oil will further damage the economies of
the West.
Russian forces are making slow but steady progress
across southern and eastern Ukraine after winning in Mariupol, the biggest
battle of the war so far, and a demoralizing defeat for Ukraine.
In the US inflation, which was already high before the
Ukraine crisis, has been driven even higher and reached over 8% with the Fed
scrambling to control it with higher interest rates. Partly as a result of
this, the stock market has come close to bear territory. As the war progresses,
many have joined Ben Bernanke, former Fed Chair, in predicting a
period of high unemployment, high inflation, and low growth – the dread
stagflation.
Domestically, there are signs of deterioration in
support of the war. Most strikingly, 57 House Republicans and 11 Senate
Republicans voted against the latest package of weaponry to Ukraine, bundled
with considerable pork and hidden bonanzas for the war profiteers. (Strikingly
no Democrat, not a single one, not even the most "progressive" voted
against pouring fuel on the fire of war raging in Ukraine. But that is another
story.)
And while US public opinion remains in favor of US
involvement in Ukraine there are signs of slippage. For example, Pew reports that
those feeling the US is not doing enough declined from March to May. As more
stagflation takes hold with gas and food prices growing and voices like those
of Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul pointing out the connection between inflation and the war, discontent is certain to grow.
The NYT editorial signals alarm
over the insane goal of the neoconservatives.
There is a note of panic in this appeal to Biden to
find a negotiated solution now. The U.S. and Russia are the world’s major
nuclear powers with thousands of nuclear missiles on Launch On Warning, aka
Hair-Trigger Alert. At moments of high tension, the possibilities of Accidental
Nuclear Armageddon are all too real.
The alarm is warranted and panic is understandable.
But will the neocons in charge give up and move in a
reasonable and peaceful direction as the Times editorial
demands? This is a fantasy of the first order. As one commenter observed, the
Warhawks like Nuland, Blinken, and Sullivan has no reverse gear. They always
double down. And they are now in control of the foreign policy of the Biden
administration, the Democratic Party, and most of the Republican Party. They do
not serve the interests of humanity nor do they serve the interests of the
American people. They are in reality traitors to this country. They must be
exposed, discredited, and pushed aside. Our survival depends on it.
John V. Walsh, until recently a professor of
physiology and neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical
School, has written on issues of peace and health care for Asia
Times, San Francisco Chronicle, EastBayTimes/San Jose Mercury News, LA
Progressive, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch, and others.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario