Russia and the Western oligarchies

Almost 20 years ago, from 2–4  September 2005, the “Mut zur Ethik” association held its annual congress on the topic of “What is needed to promote peace in the world?”. More than 50 experts and several hundred participants from all over the world were discussing the highly multifaceted question of the conditions for more peace. Anyone leafing through the 500-page conference proceedings¹ will recognise from the table of contents: firstly, that the question of these conditions encompasses almost all areas of life and politics. And, secondly, that we are much further away from peace today than we were then. Even though the year 2005 and the years before were by no means peaceful: NATO’s war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of international law, NATO’s war of aggression against Afghanistan since 2001 in violation of international law, the US-led “coalition of the willing” war of aggression against Iraq since 2003 in violation of international law.
  Even then it was clear that the Western oligarchs had no qualms regarding using the means of power at their disposal to expand and enforce their claims to power. And that these oligarchs’ claims to power also encompassed all areas of life and politics – from questioning the institution of family to the most brutal use of weapons in wars that violate international law.
  I am using the term “oligarch” here in reference to the French historian and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd, who in his book “Der Westen im Niedergang. Ökonomie, Kultur und Religion im freien Fall” [The decline of the West. Economy, culture and religion in free fall] (2024, ISBN 978-3-86489-469-5), he speaks of “liberal oligarchies” with regard to Western states. Although these states are liberal democracies according to their constitutions, they have for many years in reality been systems in which economic, social and political life is largely determined by just a few powerful people. “Liberality” exists mainly in relation to minorities: the few very rich and all “woke” people. He contrasts this with the term “autocratic democracy” for Russia, because although the country is run centrally, this leadership has the interests of the country’s citizens in mind.

Putin’s contradiction
and the consequences

Just under a year and a half after this “Mut zur Ethik” congress, Western governance experienced a significant public objection: Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007.²
  Up until 2007, Western policy had focussed on the creeping domination of Russia without openly engaging in war. The chapters on Russia in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”³ bear eloquent witness to this. The pursuit of such domination has existed since the end of the Cold War; it has ranged from the direct control of Russian policy by US emissaries in Moscow, the targeted impoverishment of the people, the plundering of Russian raw materials and the covert support of separatist forces (for example in the two Chechen wars) to the expansion of NATO to the East, the cancellation of disarmament treaties and the plans for the stationing of so-called missile “defence” positions in Eastern Europe.
  After 2007, there was a move towards open confrontation, primarily in the form of sanctions and proxy wars: as early as 2008, for example – failed miserably – in South Ossetia. The war that began in eastern Ukraine in 2014 and the escalation in February 2022 were very much along these lines. There is ample evidence for the statement that the West provoked this war in order to isolate Russia internationally, ruin it economically and inflict a decisive “strategic defeat”, carry out a regime change and perhaps even break up the country into many ungovernable but easily exploitable parts – similar to the plans for the “reorganisation” of West Asia.⁴

It was never just about Ukraine

Thus, it was never just about Ukraine and certainly not about its fate, but about the fundamental interests of Western oligarchs. This explains the ferocity of the war in Ukraine (“to the last Ukrainian”) and the constant Western escalation with aggressive narratives about their own innocence and victimhood.⁵ The “Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in Warsaw” and the “Resolution of the European Parliament on strengthening the EU’s unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war of aggression and the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia” are exemplary and topical examples of this.⁶ It also explains the great Russian mistrust of the Western talk of a ceasefire that can now be heard.
  With defeat now looming in the Ukrainian proxy war, the long-term Western plans are in danger of failing. However, the Western oligarchs’ quest for power is still unbroken. On 27 November, former US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor spoke of ignorance and arrogance in a video interview⁷ with regard to the attitude of the current and future US leaders – leading the world to the brink of a third world war. – And it is to be feared that the recent developments in Syria will once again give the Western warmongers a boost.

Talk of a ceasefire
under the microscope

The official Western calls for a ceasefire that are now increasingly being heard must therefore be scrutinised very closely. Where is there a real interest in ending the war in Ukraine and reaching an agreement between equal negotiating partners? Where is the focus on creating a foundation for a security order in Europe that respects the security interests of all European states? Are the US oligarchs really prepared to end the decades of the not at all peaceful pax americana? Where do we recognise a deceptive package designed to conceal the obvious failure of the Western war effort and, in the long term, to rely on war and further Western domination?
  If we examine the new proposals by Volodimir Zelensky, for example, as well as those of Donald Trump’s upcoming Ukraine envoy Kellogg with these questions in mind, the scales are still tipped in favour of deception.

Ending the war, but how?

It would be a blessing for the soldiers on the front line in Ukraine, for the people in the country, in Europe and all over the world, if the weapons were silent – better today than tomorrow. However, we must add in the direction of the West: Russian policy is not an all-or-nothing policy, but the country’s leaders know what they want, and they also know what drives the Western oligarchs. Russia is acting with an open visor. The country will not make rotten compromises. And this is not only in Russia’s interests.
  Yes, Russia is currently also demonstrating its military superiority! But have the oligarchs of the West understood any other language?
  Russia will insist on its conditio sine qua non: a Ukraine that no longer poses a threat of war for Russia. A Ukraine that gives up its claim to the territories in which the majority of people have decided or are deciding in favour of Russia. A Ukraine that is not part of any military alliance against Russia, official or otherwise. A Ukraine that does not continue to discriminate against Russian-speaking citizens. There can only be peace if the ceasefire is followed by a sustainable security order.
  At the beginning of genuine diplomatic efforts to find a peace solution, the goals of the negotiating partners will not be identical. It will probably be the case that the Western negotiating partner initially pursues completely different goals from the Russian. That is not a tragedy. However, there will be no negotiated solution if ignorance and arrogance persist.

Abandon the enemy image of Russia

The anti-Russian agitation of recent years in Ukraine, as in almost all Western countries, has poisoned Western-Russian relations. This will not be cured by a ceasefire or peace agreement. But the example of Franco-German history shows that this does not have to result in eternal enmity. If those responsible in the West really switch to peace, this will also result in a great deal of antidote.
  However, peace would be best served if the citizens of the Western states – in many small steps – turned their countries into liberal democracies (again). •

¹ Verlag Menschenkenntnis (ed.). Mut zur Ethik. Was braucht es für mehr Frieden auf der Welt? XIII. Kongress (Mut zur Ethik. What does it take to achieve more peace in the world? XIIIth Congress) from 2 to 4 September 2005 in Feldkirch/Vorarlberg, Zurich 2006, ISBN 3-906989-57-7
² http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034
³ Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard, 1997
⁴ cf. for example Kurt O. Wyss. Die gewaltsame amerikanisch-israelische “Neuordnung” des Vorderen Orients. (The violent American-Israeli “reorganisation” of the Middle East). Aarau 2022, ISBN 978-3-033-09019-4
⁵ Narratives of innocence and victimhood are particularly widespread in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which belonged to the former sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. The peoples of these states were victims of Soviet policy, especially after the Second World War. However, it is a distortion of historical facts to characterise Soviet policy as Russian policy. This mainly serves anti-Russian propaganda. Today’s Russia is not a new Soviet Union.
⁶ https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/2685616-2685616 of 19 November 2024; resolution of the EU Parliament https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-10-2024-0191_EN.html of 26 November 2024; cf. also the commentary on the resolution of the EU Parliament by MEP Michael von der Schulenburg at https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=125590 of 2 December 2024
⁷ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVshqS0UvXE