Meduza is a pro-Western Russian media outlet that is now based in Latvia. – Natylie

Meduza, 6/3/23

Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Meduza has been analyzing — and refuting — the Russian military propaganda that tries to justify the war (here’s one recent example). But while we find Moscow’s talking points absurd and unconvincing, there’s no denying it: propaganda works. Even among our readers, there are people who continue to make excuses for the invasion, despite the fact that it’s caused untold pain for millions of Ukrainians and has been destructive to Russia itself. We decided to hear what these people had to say: we asked them to explain why they support Russia waging war on Ukraine. Over just a few days, we received hundreds of detailed responses, read them closely, and decided to publish some of them with minimal edits. We believe these letters are an important record, and we hope they’ll be informative for those working to end the war, trying to change the ruling regime in Russia, and wondering how to deal with people whose minds may never be changed.

Warning: The authors of these letters attempt to justify Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. They may be extremely unpleasant or disturbing to read. Proceed with caution.

Andrey

35 year old, Volgograd

A war ends when one side wins. Russia’s defeat will mean national humiliation, which we cannot allow. Therefore, we must win — we no longer have a choice.

Ukraine isn’t looking for peace. They’re just asking for more weapons and shelling Russian cities. Too much blood has been spilled for us to just say, “Thanks everyone, time to go our separate ways.”

Alexey

24 years old, Yakutsk

[Meduza’s] question [about why some readers support the war] is actually wrongly put. I don’t support the war, but I also don’t want Russia to lose. If that happens, it will be worse for everybody, and there’s no doubt the world we’re used to will collapse — and an even greater darkness will come. The war was a mistake, but losing it is unacceptable.

Pavel

30 years old, Germany

I don’t support the war, but I decided to write a response, because people who try to find justifications for the war are being equated with those who support it.

I’m angry at both sides of the conflict. I’m angry at Russia because it started a stupid, bloodthirsty war that leads to senseless killing every day. I’m angry at the countries that support Ukraine because they’re not insisting on an immediate cessation of hostilities, on an end to the senseless killing. Instead, they’re supplying the country with weapons, understanding all the while that it’s only increasing the number of victims.

Sergey

38 years old, city not specified

I don’t support the war. But unfortunately, the very existence of my Motherland (Russia) is at stake. I don’t want to see the collapse, the destruction of my country. I do have questions for the instigators of the special military operation. But first we need to solve the existential issue.

Anonymous

38 years old, city not specified

The only thing worse than a war is a lost war. Starting it was an insane mistake, but now we have to win it; otherwise we’ll be in the position of vae victis. I don’t support Putin — damn him.

Dmitry

35 years old, Moscow

At first, I consistently opposed the war. But over time, I got tired of what was happening, of the constant fear for myself and my friends, of the fact that I could be called up [to the front] if I opposed the war, and of the foreign media writing that Russians need to do something about the current regime and the war.

I also realized that if Russia doesn’t find a way to get out of this situation without losing face or losing on the global stage, life in Russia will get drastically worse. There are a number of examples in world history that indicate this (such as Germany).

Nevertheless, war is always bad, and it doesn’t bringing anything but blood, death, and crippled fates. The decision to wage it was a mistake, that’s a fact, but now the situation has reached a stage where losing isn’t an option.

Oleg

27 years old, city not specified

[I support the war] because in my view, the “peace plan” presented by Zelensky and supported by the “collective West” is highly likely to do so much damage to Russia that we can’t be sure it would survive. And I’m keenly aware that my well-being, my safety, and my life prospects would worsen significantly more [in that case] than if the Russian army manages to do enough damage to Ukraine that the final peace deal is more of a compromise.

Anonymous

36 years old, Tyumen

I don’t support the war in the “Z” sense. What’s more, I lost my fucking mind on February 24, [2022]. But as a resident of Russia, I believe that while sending troops into Ukraine was a mistake, withdrawing them would be a crime. I have no intention of paying reparations for the mistakes of others for the next 20 years. Nobody listens to the losing side.

I’m not going to take up arms. You could say I’m an observer who doesn’t support Ukraine. I went there dozens of times before the Maidan, and I’m aware of how the mood and the laws have changed there. If a European state is being built there, then it’s similar to Francoist Spain or Salazar’s Portugal, no different from Putin’s Russia.

Victoria

28 years old, St. Petersburg

At first, my view [of the war in Ukraine] was negative, like my view of all armed conflicts. But over time, as I saw the amount of hatred for Russia and Russians, the joy at the explosion of the Crimean Bridge, and the West’s active arming of Ukraine, I started to realize that Russophobia and other things that I used to think were just stupid propaganda are not all lies. War always brings sorrow, but sometimes unpopular decisions are the right ones.

Nikolai

27 years old, Austria

In my view, the Western point of view isn’t quite correct; I agree with Putin’s idea about a unipolar world with double standards. I believe the West rocked the boat itself and then made Russia’s government responsible for the aftermath. In addition, the constant financial support and pumping of weapons into Ukraine makes the Ukrainian regime continue the war rather than entering negotiations.

Artyom

40 years old, Berlin

What I support first and foremost is not the war but the Russian people and Russia’s interests. At first, I was strongly opposed to it, but as things have developed, I’ve changed my view.

I’ve lived in Germany for 20 years and have never seen so much propaganda. Western politicians and media have taken an absolutely one-sided stance: Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is a heroic state. Anyone who subscribes to a different view is pushed out of the information space and “canceled.”

The countries of Western Europe have shown themselves to be completely weak-willed and are doing the bidding of the U.S. Ukraine is being directly controlled by the Americans. This conflict fully proves that there are no independent countries in Western Europe and that there are practically none left in Eastern Europe.

Alexey

31 years old, Moscow

Well, what options do we have, guys? The war has already begun, there’s no turning back. Given the circumstances, I’m not ready to leave; I don’t want to feel like a migrant worker, even an educated one (I’m a programmer). I love Russia and Moscow has always been the most comfortable place for me. How can I oppose it now, when everyone understands perfectly well what’s going to happen if the current regime loses?

It’s too late to turn back. Let them fight as long as there’s mutual interest, and after the regime change (which is inevitable), we’ll see what happens. Meanwhile, what happened, what the reasons for it were, and whether it was worth it are all pointless judgements to make right now. For what it’s worth, I opposed the war from the very start. But now I’m against the radical “libtards,” Western hypocrisy, and everything that continues to feed this war.

Sergey

27 years old, Perm

I support the actions of my president and my country. Yes, I didn’t initially understand the purpose of this whole “operation,” but after some time, I saw the Russophobic statements from both the European Union and the U.S. Anyone with critical thinking skills and a modicum of intelligence understands: Russia is not a “terrorist state,” we’re just protecting our interests and our sovereignty. So I, like the majority of Russian citizens, fully support the special military operation, and if it becomes necessary for me to go fight, I’ll do it.

Ruslan

28 years old, Kazan

I don’t support the war, but I don’t judge Russia for it either. I believe that by starting the war, Russia showed the weakness of its diplomacy and its inability to negotiate with its neighbors. But I also don’t support the view of those who say Russia is practically the same as Nazi Germany.

First of all, Ukraine had a choice: it could have come to an agreement with us in the first days of the war, before things had gone too far, and met our demands. It would have lost territory, but it would have saved itself as a state. Is territory really more important than human life? So Ukraine is also partially at fault for the lives of those who have died. I’m confident that the lives of the people who lived on the territories that would have gone to Russia would not have gotten any worse. In some cases, it may have even gotten better.

David

34 years old, Saratov

The Minsk agreements were a formality; Russia wasn’t able to implement them unilaterally. The West cynically admitted later on that it was just preparing Ukraine for war.

Nobody was stopping Ukraine from negotiating with the [self-proclaimed, and later annexed] LNR and DNR and giving them autonomy. Instead, Ukraine bombed its own cities.

The war in Ukraine can be regarded as the solving of the national question that was postponed after the collapse of the USSR. Nobody was stopping Ukraine from developing Crimea [before its annexation] either. They only remembered that Crimea was Ukrainian after they lost it. An overwhelming majority of Ukraine’s population honestly voted to join Russia.

Ukraine didn’t want to negotiate with Russia. Zelensky took the wrong position when he believed the West’s promises. In the end, Ukraine’s cities were destroyed, its economy is collapsing, and millions of people have left the country.

Murad

28 years old, Moscow

Despite the fact that our government is corrupt and ineffective, Ukraine poses a danger to our southern border. If we don’t have the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, we’ll lose influence over the Black Sea and the Caucasus. From 2014 to 2022, all Ukrainian governments explicitly stated that they’d get Crimea and their eastern territories back by force or by diplomacy. That’s a direct threat.

[For comparison:] any European or U.S. country would use force without a second thought if it sensed a threat from its neighbors. I consider their current rhetoric to be a policy of double standards.

Dmitry

24 years old, Moscow

I don’t support the idea of starting a war, but I also don’t support the idea of ending it right now. My feeling is that nobody in the world right now is trying to offer Russians any decent alternative to what Putin is offering. The authorities don’t touch Russians who are studying or doing something related to defense, so surviving the war under this government is possible.

Meanwhile, the only ideas I’ve heard from abroad have involved Russia having a bleak future or simply involved our dehumanization. So it’s better to be with my compatriots that to count on the good will of someone like [Volodymyr Zelensky’s communications adviser Mykhailo] Podolyak or an American official making money off the war.

Anonymous

30 years old, Astana

For a little over a year, the people I previously considered moral authorities have turned into traitors (who wish harm on citizens of their own country and call for sanctions and don’t try to get them removed), disgraces (they propose that soldiers surrender and blame themselves), weaklings, and liars.

Still now, I think Russia got drawn into this war in vain, very much so. But the method of getting out being proposed by the politicians who I used to trust is shameful, painful, humiliating, and dishonest. It’s better to wait for the people who will replace Putin: Russia is full of smart people.

As far as spending the next three lifetimes repenting, giving up our nuclear weapons, and paying reparations thanks but no thanks. I hope the war will end soon and that as few people will die in it as possible — primarily Russian citizens, but also citizens of Ukraine.

By Ben Freeman, Responsible Statecraft, 6/1/23

“To be brutal about it, we need to see masses of Russians fleeing, deserting, shooting their officers, taken captive, or dead. The Russian defeat must be an unmistakably big, bloody shambles. …To that end, with the utmost urgency, the West should give everything that Ukraine could possibly use,” argues Eliot Cohen in The Atlantic.

What neither Cohen, who also famously pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, nor The Atlantic acknowledge in the article is that most of the weapons Cohen mentions in the article — including long-range missiles, F-16s, and even F-35s — are made by funders of Cohen’s employer, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

While this might seem like a glaring conflict of interest that, at the very least, should be disclosed in the article, a new Quincy Institute brief that I authored, “Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine Debate,” shows that this article isn’t an exception; it’s the norm. America’s top foreign policy think tanks are awash in funding from the defense industry. They’ve dominated the media market related to the Ukraine war, and they seldom, if ever, disclose that many of the weapons they’re recommending the U.S. give to Ukraine are made by their funders.

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

Yet, we only know the extent of CSIS and the Atlantic Council’s funding from the defense sector because both think tanks are commendably transparent about their donors and list all funders, within funding ranges, on their websites. Unfortunately, many of the nation’s top think tanks aren’t as forthcoming. In fact, the new brief found that nearly one third of the top U.S. foreign policy think tanks do not publicly disclose their donors. This included some of the most mentioned think tanks in media articles about the Ukraine war, like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Though AEI scholars have disclosed at public events that the organization receives funding from defense contractors, the organization does not list its donors on its website.

Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

All of this points to several clear recommendations for reform.

First, Congress should mandate that think tanks disclose their funders. Given think tanks’ prominent role in the policymaking process and the enormous amounts of money they receive from the defense industry, foreign governments, and other special interests, it’s imperative that the public and policymakers know who is funding the think tank expert they’re hearing from.

Second, media outlets should report any potential conflicts of interest with sources they’re citing about major U.S. foreign policy decisions. As the brief notes, “By not providing this information media outlets are deceiving their readers, listeners, or viewers.”

Given the growing chorus of research documenting how think tank funding influences think tank work, the very least media outlets can do is let their readers know when a source might be biased, especially when they’re commenting on questions of war and peace.

Link here.

Is anyone going to stop this runaway freight train?

By Phil Rosen, Markets Insider, 6/1/23

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has come at a steep geopolitical price and tens of thousands of people have died, but a new analysis by the Economist suggests the country is actually spending a small amount on the war effort.

The direct fiscal cost of the war — spending on soldiers and machines — is estimated to be about 3% of Russia’s GDP, or roughly $67 billion a year, according to the report. That figure comes from a comparison of Moscow’s pre-invasion spending forecasts for defense and security with what it actually spent. 

By historical standards, the current war pales in comparison. The Soviet Union during World War II, for example, spent about 61% of GDP, and the US at the same time put about 50% of its GDP toward the conflict.

However, 3% is substantially higher than the 0.4% of GDP the Soviet Union spent on its war on Afghanistan.

One reason for the relatively low spending on Ukraine is political, as the government has repeatedly called the war a “special military operation,” which could preclude using an exorbitant percentage of the GDP.

There are also economic reasons. Printing additional cash to fund the war would push inflation higher and weigh on Russia’s citizens. Saddling banks with war debt could do the same, and both options in turn could harm Vladimir Putin’s political aims.

Plus, the technology underpinning armed forces today is more advanced than ever, which means militaries require fewer people and machines for a war effort.

To be sure, the war has resulted in widespread sanctions that have reshaped global oil flows and trade, and cut into Russia’s energy supremacy. Western nations have barred or boycotted Russian commodities, which has pushed Moscow to seek alternative destinations for its oil and other goods.

By Jeffrey Sachs, Consortium News, 6/8/23

President John F. Kennedy was one of the world’s great peacemakers. He led a peaceful solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis and then successfully negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union at the very height of the Cold War. At the time of his assassination, he was taking steps to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam. 

In his dazzling and unsurpassed Peace Speech, delivered 60  years ago on June 10, 1963, Kennedy laid out his formula for peace with the Soviet Union.

Kennedy’s Peace Speech highlights how Joe Biden’s approach to Russia and the Ukraine War needs a dramatic reorientation. Until now, Biden has not followed the precepts that Kennedy recommended to find peace. By heeding Kennedy’s advice, Biden too could become a peacemaker. 

A mathematician would call JFK’s speech a “constructive proof” of how to make peace, since the speech itself contributed directly to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed by the U.S. and Soviet Union in July 1963. Upon receipt of the speech, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev told Kennedy’s envoy to Russia, Averell Harriman, that the speech was the greatest by an American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, and that he wanted to pursue peace with Kennedy.

‘No More Urgent Task’

In the speech, Kennedy describes peace “as the necessary rational end [goal] of rational men.” Yet he acknowledges that peacemaking is not easy: “I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war — and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.” 

The deepest key to peace, in Kennedy’s view, is the fact that both sides want peace. It is easy to fall into the trap, warns Kennedy, of blaming a conflict only on the other side. It is easy to fall into the trap of insisting that only the adversary should change their attitudes and behavior. Kennedy is very clear: “We must reexamine our own attitude — as individuals and as a Nation — for our attitude is as essential as theirs.”

Kennedy attacked the prevailing pessimism at the height of the Cold War that peace with the Soviet Union was impossible, “that war is inevitable — that mankind is doomed — that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man.” 

Crucially, said Kennedy, we must not “see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side.” We must not “see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.” Indeed, said Kennedy, we should “hail the Russian people for their many achievements —in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.” 

Oct. 7, 1963: President John F. Kennedy signing the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, surrounding by aides and advisers. (Robert Knudsen, White House, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

‘Collective Death Wish’ Warning 

Kennedy warned against putting a nuclear adversary into a corner that could lead the adversary to desperate actions. “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death wish for the world.” 

Kennedy knew that since peace was in the mutual interest of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a peace treaty could be reached. To those who said that the Soviet Union would not abide by a peace treaty, Kennedy responded that

“both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours—and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.” 

Kennedy emphasized the importance of direct communication between the two adversaries. Peace, he said, “will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.” 

In the context of the Ukraine War, Biden has behaved almost the opposite of JFK. He has personally and repeatedly denigrated Russian President Vladimir Putin. His administration has defined the U.S. war aim as the weakening of Russia. Biden has avoided all communications with Putin. They have apparently not spoken once since February 2022 and Biden rebuffed a bilateral meeting with Putin at last year’s G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia. 

March 26, 2022: U.S. President Joe Biden speaking at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, where he said Putin “cannot remain in power.” (White House, Adam Schultz)

Biden has refused to even acknowledge, much less to address, Russia’s deep security concerns. Putin repeatedly expressed Russia’s ardent opposition to NATO enlargement to Ukraine, a country with a 2,000-kilometer border with Russia. The U.S. would never tolerate a Mexican-Russian or Mexican-Chinese military alliance in view of the 2000-mile Mexico-U.S. border. It is time for Biden to negotiate with Russia on NATO enlargement, as part of broader negotiations to end the Ukraine war. 

When Kennedy came into office in January 1961, he stated clearly his position on negotiations:

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.” 

In his Peace Speech, JFK reminded us that what unites the U.S. and Russia is that “we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

Jeffrey D. Sachs, author of To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace, is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development. He has been adviser to three United Nations secretaries-general, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2020). Other books include: Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable (2017) and The Age of Sustainable Development, (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

This article is from  Common Dreams.