Power Dynamics

I have very mixed feelings about writing this essay.  I seek not to alienate nor weaken the power of vast majority of my Antiwar friends by unnecessary critique (thereby violating the very principles I am trying to explicate).  Many work far harder than I do to end war.  I want to honor their efforts, even if their thinking differs slightly from mine.  And all my essays are think-pieces subject to later revision.

I also intended to write a different essay, one following on my previous short essays on Ethics and Responsibility.  One about Power Dynamics, starting from first principles.  Followed by what I'm saying here, maybe with a few other intervening essays.

But I see now, and in this troubled time, I can jump right to the ultimate point, as the situation of Russia and US/NATO is a perfect illustration of Power Dynamics principles.  And it illustrates a weakness I'd describe as Utopian Anti Imperialism, though the same principles of Power Dynamics apply to all things where power is involved.

All of my Antiwar friends and many I read condemn Putin for launching the Russian Special Operations in Ukraine.  They condemn his actions without qualification or hesitation, often as the first order of business.

But then they proceed to say that NATO should not expand into NATO, and that Minsk II agreements should be honored.

Well, Russia was asking for those very same terms, for 8 years, and getting nowhere.  Russia, a medium sized country with a well-known-to-be-potent military, and Nukes.  (And Russia was facing mounting casualties among ethnic Russians in DPR and LPR.)

If Russia was asking for those terms for 8 years and getting denounced, stonewalled, and attacked every step of the way, how do Antiwar Activists, comprising about 0.1% of the world's population, armed with pens and signs, think they are going to do better?

I think of myself as fairly imaginative, and yet I cannot imagine the situation under which US/NATO would withdraw from Ukraine.  It's a key part of the global imperial dominance project to diminish Russia, to make sure they have little power.  Kicking Russians out of Crimea is a key part of that.

In fact, since it was the Donbass and Lugansk area residents who wanted to retain close ties to Russia, it might be convenient for US/NATO to employ Nazis in an ethnic cleansing operation to drive ethnic Russians (and mostly Jews) out.  As has been happening.

Now you could say, what about the poor Ukrainian citizens, under siege by Russia.  Well, the government of those poor Ukrainian citizens chose (through some very undemocratic processes) to ally itself with the global hegemon who is constantly beating up on imaginary enemies.  What did they expect?  Being a NATO member is not a guaranteed path to peace, it's a path to endless participation in wars against US/NATO enemies.  Doing nice things like blowing up Libya.  Ukraine itself is a special case, resembling a finger pointing inside Russia, US/NATO's number one enemy.  It's inconceivable that all NATO member countries would agree to protecting Ukraine as a full member.  But it could be a NATO protectorate...in other words, cannon fodder, for the empire.  In Fact the whole program was famously sold as "fighting Russia over there, and not here" at one point in the USA.  Well... 

Now I don't participate in wars.  If I could, I'd turn the USA into a neutral country, with no troops anywhere in the world, and never participating in global conflicts.  But all I have is my "pen," my "signs," and quite honestly I can't imagine the situation in which they will be effective.

So I cannot condemn violence by Russia, similar to how I cannot condemn violence by Hamas or Hezbollah.*  I recognize their concerns as legitimate, and I can see that my "solutions" have little chance of success.  And I generally see them as using less violence than the other side anyway.

(*It's a more clear cut case for the Palestinians.  These are people living under well known occupation and siege.  Besieged populations have the right of self defense INCLUDING violence against the civilian population of their captors, on first principles.  The Russians do not have such a clear right to retain "defensibility."  It's harder to argue for war on such a basis, and they have no rights to harm civilians at all in such an effort.  However, when the limited siege of the Donbass is considered, Russian rights of self defense are more robust.  10,000 have been killed in the Donbass, according to some reports.  We don't know all the particulars so it's hard to feel confident about this justification.  I'd also throw in the Maidan Coup and the general history of NATO encirclement and even the history of how Ukraine's borders were established and how the Soviet Union was dissolved as some justifications for Russian actions.  Putin made these points in his speech.)

Ritually condemning Russia looks like virtue signalling to me.  And it aligns with the Global Hegemonic propaganda and values.  We should at minimum be condemning US/NATO one hundred times more than Russia (plus, it's our direct Responsibility).  I would not open my mouth for a condemnation of Putin without simultaneously condemning even greater war criminals Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and and Barack Obama.  (As I did in my letter to Biden below, trying to follow my principles of Ethics and Responsibility).  And it's unnecessary to condemn Putin because I am not Responsible for Putin, or the actions of the Russian government.  Putin's actions are the responsibility of Russians (and I understand as of March 1, 2022 his popularity was still rated 71%, as compared with the 41.1% of Joe Biden who I am Responsible for).

Russia has been successful in defending the territorial integrity of Syria against a US backed onslaught of Jihadis and others.  In addition to their NATO concerns, ethnic Russians in DPR and LPR were themselves under siege, and mostly see the Russians as liberators.  10,000 residents of Donbass had been killed in the ongoing civil war which was accelerating rapidly.  But I saw no crocodile tears for them, and not very many for the Yemenese who have been subjected to bombing with US bombs for years, and many many others.

So here is what I think is a good starting rule in power dynamics.  If people we know are fighting for the things we want, we should wish for their success, despite what methods they have chosen to apply.  We should not try to weaken them by joining with their opposition in blanket condemnation of their methods.

In short, if we really want change, we shouldn't stand in the way.  We shouldn't get picky, like a concern troll.

We should stand in the way of those fighting for things OTHER than what we want, especially if we are Responsible for them, such as if they are our nominal representatives.

At some point, we may have to decide which side we are on.  A key part of that is recognizing that there are "sides" to any conflict, each having mixed principles, and none are perfect.  You have to decide the greater evil, and not work to defeat its opposition.

This is not to say, necessarily, that you must use their methods or give more than rhetorical support to the most unprincipled elements of the opposition...though that is what US/NATO always does, and understanding power dynamics you can see why, provided you have no principles other than "winning" (which often doesn't accomplish anything permanent).  True success takes all kinds of works.  US Antiwar Activists should not be trying to shame Putin along with western imperialists, but instead be pushing their own government into accepting Putin's reasonable demands.

The more public the more this applies, which is why concern trolls demand unqualified denunciations of the impure as the first order of official business, after which,the hidden hand of the greater evil has already won.