When former French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested that a total Ukrainian military victory was unlikely, the New York Times‘ Roger Cohen (8/27/23) charged that “the obstinacy of the French right’s emotional bond with Russia owes much to a recurrent Gallic great-power itch.”
It doesn’t take much in our media system to be labeled a “Putin apologist” or “pro-Russia.” In this New Cold War, even suggesting that the official enemy is not Hitlerian or completely irrational could earn ridicule and attack.
After the largely stalled Ukrainian counteroffensive against the Russian occupation, conditions on the front have hardened into what many observers describe as a “stalemate.” Like virtually all wars, the Russo-Ukrainian War will end with a negotiated settlement, and the quicker it happens, the quicker the bodies will stop piling up.
Despite this, anyone who advocates actually pursuing negotiations is immediately attacked. The New York Times (8/27/23) did this in an article about former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in an article that argued he “gives a voice to obstinate Russian sympathies.” The Times wrote:
In interviews coinciding with the publication of a memoir, Mr. Sarkozy, who was president from 2007 to 2012, said that reversing Russia’s annexation of Crimea was “illusory,” ruled out Ukraine joining the European Union or NATO because it must remain “neutral,” and insisted that Russia and France “need each other.”
“People tell me Vladimir Putin isn’t the same man that I met. I don’t find that convincing. I’ve had tens of conversations with him. He is not irrational,” he told Le Figaro. “European interests aren’t aligned with American interests this time,” he added.
To Times writer Roger Cohen, Sarkozy’s remarks “underscored the strength of the lingering pockets of pro-Putin sympathy that persist in Europe,” which persist despite Europe’s “unified stand against Russia.” Cohen didn’t challenge or rebut anything the former president said—he merely quoted the words, labeled them “pro-Putin,” and moved on.
The New Cold War mentality has encouraged a new wave of McCarthyite attacks against anyone who dissents against the establishment status quo. Merely pointing out that Putin is “not irrational” flies in the face of the accepted conventional wisdom that Putin is a Hitler-like madman hell bent on conquering Eastern Europe. That conventional wisdom is what allows calls for negotiation to be dismissed without any serious discussion, and challenging that wisdom elicits harsh reactions from establishment voices.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
I’m sorry. I usually agree with you, but not this time. Putin is a fascist dictator who has his internal enemies assassinated. He led Russia to invade a sovereign nation without military provocation. He has also spread propaganda in Europe and the US attacking democratic norms and tried to influence our 2016 election. His goons have propped up dictators in Africa to extract wealth. No, Putin is not crazy, but he is dangerous. Appeasement has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work in the future.
What exactly did Bryce Green write that you disagree with?
Fascist ELECTED and POPULAR dictator? https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/
And seriously? Russiagate….STILL? You really still believe that “Russia” and “Putin” “tried to influence our 2016 election”? How? Some Facebook paid posts that nobody even saw and that weren’t even election-related? The whole thing has long ago been debunked. Even when the Russians named by Mueller in his indictments lawyered up and demanded discovery….guess what happened. THEY DROPPED THE CHARGES…LOL!
You don’t think there was “military provocation” in the shelling of ethnic Russians in the Donbass region? Or in Zelensky’s statements that he not only wanted to join NATO but to get nuclear weapons? Or the continual encirclement of Russia with a refusal to invite them to, ya know, join NATO if it’s really a “defensive” alliance?
And Africa? Really??? THAT’S who you see as being an extractive colonialist entity propping up dictators and spreading havoc? Not the US, France and previously Belgium? You do know that Libya is in Africa, right? Do you remember a guy named Patrice Lumumba who was killed by…..Rus….I mean THE CIA?
You’ve got literally everything 180 degrees from the truth.
Did the US/CIA apologize for murdering Lumumba? And I wasn’t only talking about him. I was talking about the century long subjugation of the Congo by Belgium.
Russia still has a legacy of support amongst the African working class because, in the main, the Soviet Union supported freedom movements against US-allied fascists such as the South African apartheid state or the former Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko. As for “without military provocation”, you cannot be serious. Even American establishment journalists and politicians admit there was massive provocation of the kind which (as the example of the Cuban missile crisis showed) the US government would have also replied to with enormous military action.
The US has a long history of assassinations, too, the most recent and notable being, of course, Trump’s murder of Iranian Major-General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. So it would behove you to change your sources of information. Socialists like me have not the slightest iota of support for the reactionary, anti-working class nationalist Putin, but we understand which nation has global hegemony and which doesn’t.
Oh well, there is no reasoning with your ignorance.
It isn’t “ignorance” when they are citing facts. You are the one who is ignorant and just wrong.
I think it’s simply incorrect to state that “virtually all wars…end with a negotiated settlement…”. Typically the terms of settlements are imposed on the losing side. If that passes as “negotiated,” then it sounds like the doublespeak that characterizes much of statecraft. Mendacity and approximation seem to be staples of western liberal democracies, like “we are a nation of laws, not if men.”
With credit to your final point, you do know the meaning of the word “virtually”, correct?
And yes, most wars do end with negotiated settlement even if one side (the “losing” one) has far fewer options when it comes to the negotiations. When one side or both agree to stop fighting and make peace, that’s called negotiating and the current NATO-Ukraine-Russia war will not end without one of three things happening: 1) Russia simply surrenders and leaves Ukraine (not gonna happen), 2) Ukraine surrenders (lookin’ like the USA isn’t gonna let that happen) and bargains for peace or 3) Nuclear annihilation for a whole lotta people.
Hitler had his comeuppance in Stalingrad, and Japan wanted their Emperor to be respected as their leader, but neither “negotiated” their respective fates. The term is a cheat code for historians. It signifies an end to hostilities, and legalistically preempts the potentially awkward reminder of a humiliating defeat. As used, it offers no insight to the reasons behind the cessation of hostilities.
I believe that’s a FAIR counter point. Yet, batten down the hatches, as you are about to be attacked as being reasonable.
JohnO,
Negotiations have been a part of ending most all major wars throughout history. North/South Korea is one of the few where a final resolution was not reached.
Arguing that “one side won, therefore the power balance at the table wasn’t equal, therefore it wasn’t a negotiation” is a little absurd.
At present, Ukraine has as strong hand for negotiating, but if Russia utilizes a tac-nuke to smooth out the landscape between Kiev and the Donbass, that will change significantly.
“Russia” has no interest in flattening east/central Ukraine. The invasion was partially launched as a R2P action to stop the Kiev Banderite regime from shelling Donbass 24/7/365. Russians don’t want to see Ukrainians die needlessly.
We passed a resolution at the Wa 40th LD Democrats in March of 2014 condemning the Nuland/McCain/Biden overthrow of the government in Kiev and installation of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. We knew it would be a provocation to the Russians and Ukrainians would pay the price. What we wouldn’t have predicted was the massacre of 14,000 Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas by the Azov’s, and the protracted war that benefits U.S. military contractors while ordinary people suffer.
Come on Bryce, not very compelling, sotta cherry picking and surely you can do better than that.
I guess you’d be in favor, like Sarkozy, of a “Munich 2.0” type deal.
My objection to Ukraine is that creepy little man who was formerly a comedian. Pretending to play the piano with his penis… ah well. But he is a creepy and grabby little man, when Nancy Pelosi was giving him an American flag in a tri-cornored box…oh my. The grabby little man was drooling over it.
Oh well, and much too demanding for a man wanting to be a leader with such poor skills.
HE wants, he wants , he wants. Meanwhile, in America, many are losing jobs, cannot afford the rising rents—needing food and clothing for their kids—-but Biden . seems committed to a creepy little man. What a sad state for so many Americans.