Supporting Ukraine Supports “Escalation.” Perhaps the Worst Lie of All!
We come to it at last! The claim that is used and abused by Putin apologists and cheerleaders endlessly to hide their true intent: “supporting Ukraine means supporting ‘escalation’ and will mean World War III.” On it’s face, this argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt, not to mention incredibly facile and lazy. It tries to hide demands for capitulation as calls for peace, and blames the victims and their supporters for any possible disaster Putin might unleash.
A very common tactic among Russian apologists is to claim that they are “pacifists” who simply want peace. By cutting off aid to Ukraine, they say, peace negotiations will be able to proceed.
I’m put in mind of what Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamil) said in The Last Jedi: “Amazing, everything you just said is wrong.” Allow to explain why with several points and examples. Feel free to skip to the end for the less-wordy, TL:DR version.
Punish the Aggressor, Dummy!
Don’t get me wrong, imposing sanctions on a country and/or cutting them off from military and financial assistance can be a powerful tool. It is not necessarily effective, but it makes a powerful statement that the recipient, and global community at large, cannot fail to notice. “We don’t condone this behavior,” it says. “And we’re cutting you off until you stop what you’re doing!”
By depriving this nation of any weapons or the benefits of trade, you’re also putting pressure on their means to conduct war. Imposing a total ban on business with another country and withdrawing one’s diplomats is tantamount to declaring a state of cold war, and can often lead to open war. That’s why it’s important to leave back channels open to make sure that communication continues despite the closing of official channels.
This is what existed during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Bloc, and it’s what the democratic nations of the world did to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan leading up to World War II. As both nations continued to break treaties, threaten their neighbors, and then invade their neighbors, countries like Britain, France, the U.S., and others ramped up their sanctions to strangle the Axis powers’ supply of oil, ores, rubber, and other materials they needed to wage war.
Ah, but here’s the thing. Today’s Russian apologists want the West and NATO to curtail its aid to Ukraine. This might strike you as perplexing since Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and Russia has maintained the advantage (at least on paper) in terms of armaments and money. Wherever thinking, ethically-inclined people recommended cutting off military aid or imposing sanctions, it was intended to punish the aggressor!
How then would cutting off Ukraine’s aid, which has been moving at a snail’s pace and has held up their attempts to launch a sweeping counter-attack, lead to peace? Trick question, it wouldn’t! And you’d have to be very feeble or a total liar to argue as much. In truth, depriving Ukraine of assistance would mean it would be robbed of the foreign aid it depends on to keep fighting. Ergo, it would be forced to concede lost territories to Russia in exchange for peace — which is precisely what Putin wants!!!
This is what Russia’s strategy in the war has come down to. They failed to take Kyiv, then shifted their focus multiple times along a front extending from north-eastern border to the Black Sea, attacking Kharkiv, Kherson, and throughout the Donbas region. They were beaten at Kharkiv and Kherson, and are now held down in Donbas, hiding behind defensive lines and hoping Ukrainian forces will wear themselves out attacking.
This is the only way Putin can salvage his reputation or any semblance of victory from this “special military operation.” Hence why Russia’s propaganda mill has been pumping out this lie ever since the war began going badly for them. They want Ukraine deprived of foreign assistance because — duh-doi! — they want to win! But the Kremlin isn’t going to admit that, hence why they need to employ conspiratorial logic to justify this campaign.
Ukrainians Are Victims of the West
Herein lies the conspiratorial logic. According to Russian propaganda outlets, NATO and the West are responsible for the war. Much like how Ukraine is “run by Nazis,” this is a feeble attempt at deflecting responsibility. In that respect, they are relying on the same playbook they’ve been using since the Euromaiden protests and Revolution of Dignity in 2014.
There too, Russian propaganda tried to spin this pro-EU, pro-democracy, pro-Western revolution into a coup orchestrated by the CIA to install a puppet government “run by Nazis” that was persecuting Russians. Coming from a man like Putin, who cultivates alliances with white supremacists within Russia and around the world, this is a trite accusation and about as hypocritical as one can get! But that’s irrelevant since this argument is a clear case of deflection, which Putin loves to do!
Similar excuses were made for the invasion of South Ossetia and the breakup of Georgia in 2008 after it elected a government that (quelle surprise!) also wanted to join NATO. And similar invasions took place in Chechnya in 1994 when the country seceded, and again in 1999 when it began aiding neighboring Dagestan to do the same. And it’s what Putin has been doing to Ukraine ever since 2014, when the Ukrainian people overthrew his prized puppet Viktor Yanukovych.
Blaming the West is nothing more than Putin’s rote excuse for whenever his neighbors defy him and he responds by invading, or he decides to poison someone for saying unkind things about him. The term “whataboutism” was created with him in mind, to describe how he constantly resorts to “what about the U.S.” whenever he’s question about his role in political assassinations, repression, war crimes, and invasions.
Besides, the point is entirely moot since Putin already admitted that this “de-Nazification” case for war was crap and that his real intention is to resurrect the good old days of the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia. But for any thinking person, there was no need for his “spontaneous sincerity” since his intentions have always been clear. He invades neighboring countries whenever they’ve decided they no longer want to be in Russia’s orbit, seizes military bases, and create breakaway Republics that will serve as buffer states along Russia’s borders.
It is only by maintaining the pretense that Ukraine is run by foreign interests (or they are fighting because the West is telling them to) that Russian propagandists can pretend that cutting off the country’s aid is somehow justified.
Who’s Threatening Nuclear War?
For the “escalation” mouthpieces, the argument always come down to the assumption that supporting Ukraine means the war will inevitably escalate to nuclear war. And of course, in their minds, the West will be to blame by not forcing Ukraine’s hand and making them cede territory for the sake of peace. This argument can be exposed as stupid fraudulence by asking one simple question. Why is it assumed nuclear war could happen?
The answer is simple: Putin keeps threatening it? Now why would it be the West’s fault if Putin decided to something so unbelievably criminal and stupid as resort to launching nukes because he can’t win this war? That’s obviously a rhetorical question, because you’d have to be a complete moron to blame anyone but Putin. But that doesn’t stop the apologists from pointing the finger at Ukrainians, the U.S., NATO, the West, and all non-apologists and saying, “if WW3 happens, it’s all your fault!”
And why not? According to the mouthpieces, it’s everybody but Putin’s fault he chose to invade Ukraine and every other neighboring state that defied him. I guess it’s also everyone else’s fault that he’s jailed or murdered any journalist who dares speak out, any politician who dares challenge him, or any Russian citizen who dares resist his edicts. But to any reasonable person who paid attention during kindergarten, the idea that everyone else but the antagonist is to blame is as ridiculous as it is transparent.
“It’s Them or Us”
The worst thing is, I’ve actually heard this argument made point blank by someone who shall remain nameless! Normally, cowards and appeasers will hint at such thinking, but only the most reprehensible coward or vile liar comes right out and says it. And I can think of three obvious reasons why:
- Saying that we should let innocent people die so the rest of us might be spared is the logic of a shameless coward.
- Its essentially saying that if a dictator threatens nuclear war, we should appease them
- It requires that you accept the argument that WW3 is inevitable without thinking
As I’ve explained in previous posts, the idea that nuclear war is inevitable is based on the flawed premise that Putin can unilaterally order the launch of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. This is based on complete ignorance of how nuclear arsenals, launch codes, and the procedures for launching a nuclear attack work. There is no “button” Putin can push that will unleash Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Similar to the U.S., the Kremlin relies on a“nuclear briefcase” (Cheget), but with slight twist.
In addition to the president, the Chief of the General Staff, and the Minister of Defense also have Chegets. In the event that the president were to decide to order a launch, he must input the launch codes into his/her Cheget, which is then transmitted to the General Staff, where the Chief must also input the codes. That’s right, there are three nuclear briefcases, and at least two of the holders need to authorize a launch. No one in Russia’s General Staff would approve of this order for one simple reason: it’s suicide!
If Russia launched its arsenal, it would experience massive retaliation from every nuclear power in the world! It’s people and infrastructure would be devastated and all its major population centers turned into glass. This is the entire point of “mutually assured destruction” (ever heard of it?) Hence why no nuclear power has ever been stupid enough to attempt a “first strike.” And hence why there are three Chegets, so that no one person can authorize Armageddon.
Second, the only launch Putin could order all by himself is a tactical nuclear strike. But again, he has to order a field general to do this, who can (and would) refuse. Why? The same reason Putin can’t launch the country’s nuclear arsenal. It would mean every country in the world would either declare war or total sanctions on Russia and orders would be issued for Putin’s assassination (and anyone still supporting him). In truth, if anyone in the Kremlin believed Putin was attempting to order a nuclear strike, they would take him out swiftly to save their people and their own asses!
Hence, if anyone claims “it’s them or us” and tells you supporting Ukraine means WW3, they are guilty of both wanton cowardice and stupidity. Putin is bluffing whenever he threatens to launch nukes because he can do nothing but bluff. In the face of failure, defeat, and another likely coup attempt, all he can do is issue threats and hope people will be scared enough to curtail aid to Ukraine.
Reality Check
And now for the painfully obvious stuff (or the TL:DR version). Cutting off aid to Ukraine is a painfully transparent Kremlin campaign to deprive their enemy (and victims) of any outside support. They have been losing the war from the beginning, they know they can’t win under current circumstances, so they hope to convince people in countries allied to Ukraine that supporting them is bad!
Anyone trying to convince you of this is either incredibly stupid or thinks you are. It’s a lie so patently stupid and false that it insults the intelligence of everyone in the room. As chief Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels once famously remarked:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
No one understands this better than Soviet-era tyrants like Putin. The old Party members were masters of propaganda that insisted to their citizens that the USSR was a) ahead of the “capitalist” nations, b) under constant threat from external forces and “enemies within,” c) that the state was infallible and always right, and d) that black was white if the state said so.
Orwell’s nightmarish vision of a dystopian future and doublethink were heavily influenced by what he witnessed in the Soviet Union during his lifetime. Alas, the state’s propaganda failed to hide the realities that were becoming all-too-apparent in Soviet society by the 1970s — the wanton corruption, incompetence, and buffoonery of its leaders, the inefficiencies and failures of Soviet-style “socialism,” the food and fuel shortages, and the rapidly approaching financial collapse.
These things were evident to most Russians long before the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact collapsed. When that happened, they and the people in other former SSRs became free to speak the truth about Stalin, the Holomodor, the Great Terror, the Second World War, the repression at home and abroad, the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and to experience the culture of the West.
But whereas former SSRs that have since joined the European Union and NATO have thrived and developed as democracies, Russia has regressed considerably under Putin. Freedom of the press, free elections, open trade, the right to dissent, human rights, and the right to live freely have all been sacrificed on the altar of security and what was deemed “good for Russia.” Under Putin, Russia has also taken to regularly using military force to keep neighboring countries in its orbit, to sponsor “frozen conflicts” in developing nations, and to assassinating any and all dissenters.
In a country where truth is actively censored through a process of fear, intimidation, assassination, and media ownership, lies are very difficult to challenge. But beyond Russia, these lies have become popular for entirely other reasons. For all of Russia’s cyber campaigns that promote ultra-nationalists, isolationist policies, and polarization — all for the sake of undermining its adversaries through — success is achieved through a combination of trolling, social media manipulation, and appealing to ideological blinkers.
If you’re going to claim supporting Ukraine is “pro-war,” while also defending Putin’s decision to invade, you’re supporting a regime that is guilty of war crimes, mass murder, mass repression, and political assassinations. Any pretenses to wanting peace or respecting the freedom of Ukraine and the human rights of Ukrainians are (again) an insult to everyone’s intelligence, especially your own!
