If Only These Voices of Peace in USA Had Been Heeded by Policy Makers, It Would Have been Possible to Avoid Millions of Deaths

As the debate intensified, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee invited Jack Matlock ( who apart from being a former ambassador is also widely respected as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations) to testify before it. In his testimony, Matlock stated that if the US government goes ahead with the proposed NATO eastward expansion, this would be the most serious strategic blunder since the end of the Cold War.

Ignoring these warnings the USA went ahead with the eastward NATO expansion. In March-April 2008 President Bush escalated tensions further by proposing NATO membership further to Georgia and Ukraine, neglecting the even stronger Russian objections to the membership of these two countries in particular. This proposal was made and pursued by him despite the opposition from not just several western allies but reportedly even of some of US intelligence agencies and senior officials.

While waving the flag of Ukraine membership, the USA also started increasing its interference in internal affairs of Ukraine. As Matlock has written in his review of the build-up of tensions (2022)—U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep, actively supporting the 2014 regime change and overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.

This change meant that a government which opposed NATO membership went out and a regime which promoted NATO membership came in.

The step-by-step, relentless pursuit of the policy of eastward expansion of NATO by the USA had been accompanied by rising concerns of Russia regarding its urgent security interests. These concerns were shared by all sections of political opinion in Russia and no one knew this better than William Burns, who, in the course of his various important assignments in Russia, had warned his government about the strong sensitivities in all sections of Russian political opinion on this issue (Burns later became CIA director in the Biden administration).

The importance of this issue can be realized from this observation of Jack Matlock at the time of the build-up of the Ukraine crisis in mid-February 2022. He stated, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.”

Increasing Drift towards Aggression

“The truth of the matter is that we are in a heavily militarized society driven by greed, lust for profit and wars are being created just to fuel that.”

Words of truth such as these that are discomforting need to be heard precisely because the present-day extremely high costs (in terms of human lives) and high risks (in terms of possibility of sudden and steep escalation) of huge disruptions created by US security and foreign policy should be questioned and questioned repeatedly. These words are from Dennis Kucinich, a former presidential candidate who was also elected eight times to the House of Representatives. He was involved in many acts of great courage in his long and eventful political career, acts which others would not dare to touch, ranging from opposing the Iraq invasion with solid research-based facts and even stronger passion, and even trying to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, to repeatedly investigating and opposing Pentagon budgets and irregularities.

The quote from him given above is taken from his recent conversation with eminent journalist Chris Hedges in a program on The Real News Network titled ‘Democrats and the War Machine’ (mid-December 2022). This program raised an important issue—while several important leaders of the Democratic Party including J. William Fulbright, George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, Mike Gravel and of course Dennis Kucinich used to take anti-war positions and counter the arms industry lobby, the scope for this has reduced considerably so that both leading political parties are increasingly similar in their support of war efforts and the powerful arms industry. This is deeply worrying for peace efforts.

Asked how this happened, Kucinich replied that this tendency started about three or four decades ago with the Democratic Party also becoming more dependent on corporate funding. It is important to note that in the understanding of someone who has seen the inner workings of the political system, the impact of corporate funding, in this particular context the funding by the powerful arms industry but in other contexts also by the oil industry, the medical industry, etc., can be so serious as to change in basic ways the policy and internal democracy of a leading political party. In fact the enormously constructive political career of Kucinich was itself disrupted by sources within the Democratic Party. Further, Kucinich pointed out that widespread financial irregularities are a part of the war-mongering. He stated that while he was working on a government oversight committee, an inspector general testified that there are over one trillion dollars’ worth of accounts in the Pentagon that could not be reconciled and they have over 1,100 accounting systems, probably deliberately to use for obfuscation.

Kucinich stated that when he was in Congress, he tried to introduce legislation to forbid the U.S. from entering any war in which NATO was operating because he felt that this was a subversion of the constitutional provision in Article 1, Section 8, which states that the U.S. Congress has the power to take the country from a condition of peace to war.

Kucinich was extremely critical of the way the USA has influenced the course of events in Ukraine starting with the coup there in 2014, the imposed distressing policy of hostility against the Russian-speaking people of Eastern Ukraine resulting in the tragic loss of 14,000 lives among them. In his words, “Suddenly Ukraine becomes a bloodbath on a chessboard where innocent people are just being used as pawns in a game of nations.”

Kucinich said that with NATO becoming “a cat’s paw for war”, people in many NATO member states are going to start asking –who is NATO making decisions for us? Similarly people in their capacity as EU member states are going to increasingly ask why very high energy costs are being imposed on them when this can be avoided easily? Hence both NATO and EU face a very uncertain future due to increasing opposition of people of member states, relating to highly distressing mishandling of Ukraine policy. Regarding the existing situation Kucinich said with great feeling, as someone who has represented the Ukrainian people in his constituency as well, “ I resent this on behalf of every decent person in Ukraine who is trying to keep their family together in Ukraine and who doesn’t want to be dominated by anybody—U.S., Russia, or anybody.”

Regarding the role of media in all this, Kucinich was supportive of those who have referred to media as the spear carriers of the government. At crucial times the drumbeat of the media has been ‘war, war, war’ echoing the war cry emanating from the White House.

What is most important is to heed this warning of Kucinich regarding the drift towards the possibility of a Third World War: “Our country—I love this country—is being done a disservice by people in power who have made common cause with interest groups who are advancing policies solely to profit from war. And I think it is horrific. And in this case we are playing with the spark of World War III…I am also concerned things could spin out of control, even now with respect to Russia, China, and North Korea.”

Kucinich quoted President Kennedy who said that we should learn to live together as brothers and sisters, or else we will perish as fools. Then he says, “If ever there was a country in need of a process of truth and reconciliation, it is America. We really need to have people come forward and admit they were wrong, whatever their motives, so that we can heal this country.”

Gerry Condon, former President of Veterans of Peace, a U.S.-based global organization of military veterans and allies with 140 chapters worldwide whose collective efforts aim to build a culture for peace and end all wars, wrote a letter to President Biden in late 2022 which needs to be widely read by all those who are devoted to peace and deeply worried about the prolonged Ukraine war.

A very important feature of this letter was that it was written by a veteran who understands war and peace, who has followed U.S. strategic thinking and actions for a long time and so is able to have a very good understanding of the wider context in which the recent Ukraine events should be seen.

Condon writes, “I am writing you as a proud member of Veterans for Peace and its former president. We have been following the war in Ukraine closely, since well before the Russian invasion on February 24 of this year (2022). We were alarmed when you and President Obama supported the regime change coup in Ukraine in 2014, which was openly cheered on by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, and spearheaded by self-proclaimed Nazis.

“We watched in horror as those same self-proclaimed Nazis set fire to an Odessa union building full of Ukrainians who were protesting a new law outlawing the Russian language as an official language of Ukraine. Fifty people were burned alive or shot and beaten to death. This in a country with a long history with Russia and millions of Russian speakers.”

It is important for more people to know this background as these aspects have been brushed aside by U.S. media generally and only Russian aggression has been highlighted.

Condon continued his letter, “Appalled at the aforementioned atrocities, the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine declared their independence from Ukraine, and were soon attacked by Nazi militias. These self-described Nazi militias were then incorporated into the Ukrainian army, and the attacks continued. By the time Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 of this year (2022), 14,000 Ukrainians had already been killed in that terrible civil war.”

“Russian President Putin repeatedly warned and almost begged the U.S. and NATO: Do not push your hostile military forces any further onto Russia’s borders. Taking Ukraine into NATO would cross a serious ‘red line’. Russian troops then massed along the border with Ukraine, in a clear show of force.”

This is the real sequence of events that has not been told to most of the U.S. people and to most of the world as well. For the sake of brevity, Condon has not gone into some important pre-2014 events, which would have further confirmed his analysis and made his case stronger.

After briefly providing this background, Condon came to the real point of writing this letter to President Biden. He writes , “Mr. President, you might have stopped this war from happening merely by announcing that Ukraine would not become part of NATO and that you would end the militarization of Ukraine. You could have accepted President Putin’s offer to negotiate a new security arrangement in Europe. We looked on in disbelief as you rather cavalierly brushed aside Russia’s legitimate concerns. It looked like you were saying, ‘Bring it on’! Well, Russia brought it on. We were horrified by the Russian invasion as well as by your response. You armed Ukraine to the teeth and fanned the flames of war.”

So this is what actually happened. It is the highly provocative actions of the USA which caused the invasion. The USA could also have stopped the invasion even at a very late stage but it chose not to.

What has been the result? Condon wrote in late 2022, “Ukraine (and the black market in Europe) is now awash with high-tech US weaponry. A full-on war has killed many thousands of civilians, made millions homeless, and destabilized much of the world. We are now facing economic disasters and fearing the all-too-real possibility of nuclear war.”

So clearly very big mistakes have been made. The question is—will these mistakes continue, leading to even more harm, or will the U.S. government take action to reverse its mistaken policies and take real steps in the direction of peace, which in turn can pave the way for Russia to end its invasion? Condon was very clear that he and other Veterans of Peace want the USA to correct its mistaken policies.

He wrote, “As veterans who have experienced the carnage of war, we are concerned about the young soldiers on both sides being killed and injured in the tens of thousands. We know all too well that the survivors will be traumatized and scarred for life. These are additional reasons why the Ukraine war must end now.

“We ask you to listen to veterans who say “Enough is Enough – War is Not the Answer.” We want urgent, good faith diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine, not more US weapons, advisors, and endless war. And certainly not a nuclear war.”

Emphasizing how serious the situation is and how much is at stake, this senior veteran for peace wrote to President Biden, “Show us a Profile of Courage and save the world from World War III, a war that could literally destroy human civilization as we know it. You must distance yourself from the neocons and weapons manufacturers who are giving you terrible advice. You must reverse course now. Drop the weapons and embrace diplomacy. For the sake of Ukraine. For the sake of Russia, Europe and the United States. For the sake of the all the people of the world. Negotiate, Don’t Escalate!”

This letter is extremely important, as it was written by a veteran of armed forces who had fought for his country, whose commitment to his own country could not be doubted and who at the same time, having seen the horrors of war, had a very deep commitment to peace. It also had the great virtue of being completely honest and telling the truth in very simple words. This letter should be widely read and circulated both to understand the Ukraine crisis from a perspective of peace and to find the path ahead, again from a perspective of peace.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago told the New Yorker he believed “all the trouble in this case really started in April 2008,” when Bush made his infamous announcement on Ukraine and Georgia (regarding NATO membership), despite Moscow making it clear that “they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand.” Mearsheimer dismissed the idea Putin is bent on conquering a broader swath of Europe to restore the Russian Empire or Soviet Union as an argument “invented” by “the foreign-policy establishment in the United States, and in the West more generally.”

International relations professor Rajan Menon and former George W. Bush national security staffer Thomas Graham urged US officials in Politico in January to stave off war by “accommodating some of Russia’s principal security concerns,” and formalizing “a declared moratorium on the accession of Ukraine, or any other former Soviet state” into NATO for about 25 years.

Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote “NATO now largely exists to manage the risks created by its existence”. Eminent academic Prof Jeffrey Sachs gave repeated warnings of the grave harm likely to be caused by very aggressive policy on Ukraine. Kings College Ukraine expert Anatol Lieven repeatedly called for solutions like a neutral Ukraine and a moratorium on its entry into the NATO, first to prevent war and now to end it.

George Kennan, widely regarded as the father of the Cold War containment policy, warned as early as 1997 that expanding NATO eastward would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,” “have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy,” and “impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” 18 former diplomats said the present policy risked “significantly exacerbating the instability that now exists in the zone that lies between Germany and Russia, and convincing most Russians that the United States and the West are attempting to isolate, encircle, and subordinate them.”

Even Biden’s CIA director, William Burns, wrote from Moscow as a senior diplomat in 1995 that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here,” and that the move was “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” 13 years later, in 2008, Burns informed the Bush administration that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” and that “in more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players,” he had “yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Thus it is clear from even a quick review that some of the topmost US experts have also been very supportive of ideas built around a more friendly policy towards Russia, accommodating its legitimate security interests and avoiding provocative actions including eastward expansion of NATO. Why was such sane advice rejected in favour of needlessly provocative, hostile and aggressive policies towards Russia, against the advice of the topmost experts and even serving intelligence officials? This is a question that needs to be explored further to find out the real movers of US foreign policy and their real motives.

If so many top US experts have been warning against NATO expansion eastward and close to Russia and indicating that this will lead to war, and as it was clear that the USA will not get involved directly in the conflict, does not the USA policy amount to unjustly exposing Ukraine to more threats and danger from Russia, exactly what happened later? Clearly in the interests of world peace it is important not just to stop the war and violence immediately but in addition it is also important for the USA to end uncalled for hostility and aggression towards Russia as well its provocation of expanding NATO close to Russian borders.

In the middle of the rapid building up of a humanitarian catastrophe (and ultimately a genocide) in Gaza, several important voices spoke for de-escalation and peace. As reviewing all such voices of peace would be difficult here, we are here confining ourselves only to the voices of peace first heard in very early days of the Gaza crisis in the USA. In the USA as many as 50 democrat legislators wrote to Present Biden that the mass evacuation in Gaza and other related actions should not result in serious violation of international humanitarian law. This communication, apart from making a strong statement on its own, also reminded the President and the Secretary of State of the USA that both the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the UN High Commission on Human Rights had said that imposing a complete seize on Gaza and depriving 2.3 million Palestinian civilians who have nowhere else to go—half of whom are children—of food, water and electricity would be a violation of international humanitarian law. The legislators stated that these people should not be deprived of basic necessities like food, water, fuel and electricity.

Jewish Voice for Peace, a US based human rights organization, released an important statement on October 11 2023, giving a call for ending the air strikes in Gaza. This statement further said, “The US must work to immediately de-escalate to prevent the further loss of life, and not fuel and exacerbate the violence by sending more weapons to Israel. That is the only way to end violence: to address its root cause, 75 years of Israeli military occupation and apartheid. We must end US complicity in this systemic oppression.”

Human Rights Watch, USA, warned against the use of very dangerous weapons, after its investigations revealed that white phosphorus had already been used by Israel in border area rural settlements of Lebanon and in densely inhabited parts of Gaza. As this organization has explained, “upon contact, white phosphorus can burn people thermally and chemically, down to the bone as it is highly soluble in fat and therefore in human flesh.’ These burns can result in multi-organ failure and in death.

Prominent US legislator Bernie Sanders said on October 11 2022 that Israel’s total siege of Gaza is a breach of international law and called upon the US government to mobilize the support of the global community to de-escalate violence.

So what is clear is that saner voices speaking on the basis of facts and evidence to plead urgently for policies of peace and non-aggression have been certainly present in recent times. These include very respectable names but despite this, these have been persistently side-lined, neglected, overruled while policies of aggression have become more and more the norm for the US foreign policy establishment.

Over 100 Peace Organizations Asked to De-escalate Tensions with Russia

On October 11 2022 over 100 leading peace organizations of the USA released a joint statement calling upon President Biden to “end the US role in escalating the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia over Ukraine.”

This statement stated very clearly, “It is greatly irresponsible for a President to participate in brinkmanship between two nations that possess 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

Further this significant statement warned that the current crisis “could easily spiral out of control to the point of pushing the world to the precipice of war.”

Explaining the background this statement stated that while both sides are to blame for causing the crisis, its roots are entangled in the failure of the US government to live up to its promise made in 1990 by the then Secretary-of-State James Baker that NATO would not expand ‘one inch to the East’. However since 1999, the statement explains, NATO has expanded to include numerous countries, including some that border Russia.

This statement of peace organizations recommended that the US government should agree to a long term moratorium on an NATO expansion. This statement added that for both the US and Russia, the only sane course of action now is genuine diplomacy with serious negotiations.

The signatories of this statement included many organizations reputed for their firm commitment to peace and disarmament. These include Code Pink, Peace Action, Roots Action, Just Foreign Policy, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.

On October 14, anti-nuclear war and anti- nuclear weapon campaigners in the US called upon US authorities to de-escalate tensions with other nuclear weapon powers. These include several organizations and groups which had earlier released the peace statement. These peace demonstrations took place in as many as 40 cities spread over 20 states, including picket lines at the offices of several senators and representatives.

Significantly the demands raised by these peace demonstrations emphasized early ceasefire in Ukraine and renewal of anti- nuclear weapon treaties from which the USA had withdrawn. These include the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty from which the USA exited in 2002 and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty from which the USA exited in 2019. These peace demonstrations also called for a no-first use doctrine on nuclear weapons, for seeing nuclear weapons only as a weapon of deterrence and not of attack, for moving towards a world free of nuclear weapons and for transferring resources from weapons to food, housing and health. In addition peace demonstrators also appealed that the chances of accidental use of nuclear weapons due to false scares and misunderstandings should be minimized and nuclear weapons should not be placed in positions of hair-trigger alert.

These anti-nuclear weapons protests were organized in the wake of increasing US public concerns over the high and increasing threat of nuclear weapons war following the start of the Ukraine conflict in February. Experienced observers have pointed out that they do not recall such public concerns regarding actual use of nuclear weapons continuing over such a long stretch of time earlier.

In the latest indication of this on October 10 2022 the release of poll results by Reuters/ispos revealed that 58% of Americans fear that the USA is heading towards nuclear war.

More recently there has been widespread opposition to the Iran war and this is continuing, joined also by several formerly strong supporters of President Trump. This is being reported now on continuing basis and so need not be repeated there. What is very significant regarding the various voices of peace identified above in more detail is that these represent a strong ethical, moral tradition in the USA for seeking leadership not on the basis of wars but on the basis of peace. The USA must find this path of peace if it wants a successful, sustainable role of enlightened leadership at world level.