To date, the war in Ukraine has displaced more than 3 million refugees, a number exceeding anything seen since World War II. Vladimir Putin's goal is to get Ukraine to lay down its arms on his terms, regardless of the humanitarian crisis he is causing. And he warns all other countries in the world to refrain from interfering, as this could lead to a nuclear conflagration. How could this have come about?
In the second half of the 19th century, Alfred Nobel believed that increasing the destructive power of weapons would lead to universal peace against the risk of total mutual destruction. Bertha Von Suttner thought the opposite (see “lettersanticosti.ca -Bas les armes.” December 20, 2021). Regrettably, she was right.
Czar Nicholas of Russia set up a conference in 1899 to achieve two objectives: the disarmament of nations and the compulsory and decisive arbitration of conflicts.
The disarmament objective was a total failure, as the European powers of the time were opposed to it. As for the second objective, an international arbitration tribunal was indeed created, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, but the application of its decisions remained optional, making this body a toothless crocodile.
Another attempt to create the institutions necessary to keep the peace was made after the First World War, in 1919, at the instigation of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson: it was called the League of Nations. It too failed when the U.S. Senate rejected the idea of joining. The senators feared that such an organization would automatically and unintentionally lead them into a new world war.
Twenty years later, in 1939, humanity still did not know how to bring about world peace. And the Second World War broke out. New, even more sinister weapons were developed. In August 1945, atomic bombs were dropped by the United States on two Japanese cities to force the country's surrender. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or seriously injured. Shortly afterwards, the United States developed the H-bomb (hydrogen bomb) with a destructive power that surpasses the realm of imagination. A few years later, 5 countries had acquired these weapons of Death: in addition to the United States, the USSR (Russia), France, the United Kingdom and China.
There were other hard times, but no other nuclear bomb was dropped on a population over the last 77 years. Had the balance of terror finally worked?
Not for Russia, it seems. The head of the Kremlin is threatening to use his nuclear arsenal if he is not given a free hand to crush and trample Ukraine. This is nuclear terrorism. No one knows how this whole affair will end.
The best defence for all free countries would be an unwavering union in an organization like NATO, against the aggressions of these criminal autocracies.
If there is another lesson to be learned from the war so far, it is that Russia is reluctant to attack NATO, knowing that an attack on one of its 30 members would be tantamount to an attack on all 30 member countries, under Article 5 of that organization (see “lettersanticosti.ca - OTAN.” January 17, 2022). Russia would have literally declared war on 30 countries at once. A life-threatening risk even for the Russian president.
If we want to stop the decline in the number of free countries in favour of criminal autocracies, they all must eventually be under the umbrella of an expanded defensive alliance modelled on NATO. The military strength of such an alliance would exceed that of all its rivals.
Freedom House, whose reports are published on the Web, puts the number of free countries at 84 out of 211 (40 percent), the number of partially free countries at 60 (28 percent) and the number of countries without freedom at 67 (32 percent). This shows that much remains to be done to grant freedom to all human beings on earth. However, never in the history of mankind has freedom been so widespread.
And autocracies arguing the perceived threat of such an alliance should be reminded that in accordance with United Nations statutes this is solely a defensive organization.
As for Ukraine and NATO, we must break out of this vicious circle. Ukraine is not part of NATO and will not be defended by this alliance.
It is therefore not NATO that should be used as a means of defending Ukraine, but rather an ad hoc coalition of all the countries that wish to do so, and authorized by the United Nations.
This was the case following the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It would be these countries that would bring military assistance to Ukraine. This ad hoc coalition could probably include half of the countries that voted for the resolution demanding a cease-fire at the recent UN General Assembly, i.e., about 70 out of 140. The leaders of this coalition would of course be the same as those currently helping Ukraine, but under a different hat.
Vladimir Putin would not declare war on a coalition of 70 countries. But, on the other hand, let's remember that Vladimir Putin will only seriously negotiate peace with Ukraine when the forces defending that country can compete on equal terms against the Russian army. Meanwhile, he will continue to rack up war crimes. And the world's television will pour out daily its batch of horrors from this martyred country.
Next letter: La saga constitutionnelle
Comments