Katrina vanden Heuvel, columnist and editor-in-chief of The Nation magazine, believes that the West views the events in Ukraine too one-sidedly. In her Washington Post op-ed she urges the American public to think critically, exercise restraint and not ignore the obvious.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
The time has come to challenge established interpretations of the conflict in Ukraine.
The Russian military operation has entered its fourth month and has profoundly affected Europe, the global South and the rest of the world. A new political-military world order is emerging before our eyes. Action on climate change is relegated to the sidelines as dependence on fossil fuels grows stronger; food and other resource shortages drive up prices and threaten mass starvation worldwide; and the number of refugees and internally displaced persons is at its highest since World War II-an enormous challenge.
Moreover, the longer the fighting drags on, the greater the risk of a nuclear incident or accident. And since the Biden administration has clearly decided to “weaken” Russia by supplying Ukraine with weapons, up to and including anti-ship missiles, and U.S. intelligence has appeared to be assisting Kiev to the fullest, it becomes abundantly clear that the United States and NATO are at war with Russia in an indirect way.
Do the vicissitudes, dangers, and various costs of this proxy war not deserve to be the main topic of media, thoughtful analysis, discussion, and debate? Instead, the press and political elite offer us something so one-sided that it cannot even be called a discussion. To quote journalist Matt Taibbi, it is as if we are in an “intellectual no-fly zone.
Those who dare to deviate from conventional wisdom are kicked out of the mainstream media – or at least they’re not welcome. As a result, alternative views are practically unheard of. Instead of mass bias, it wouldn’t hurt to have a diversity of views and opinions and a knowledge of history, would it?
After all, those who talk about history or speculate about how the West itself precipitated the Ukrainian tragedy are in no way excusing Russia’s actions. The extent of the rhetorical or intellectual “no-fly zone” can be seen in the demonization and blasphemy of prominent figures such as thinker Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former ambassador Chas Freeman – although they make compelling arguments and fit the conflict into a historical framework.
In our fragile democracy, dissent does not seem to be prohibited. Why then do analysts, academics, and journalists not challenge the prevailing ideologeme? Is it not even possible to question whether the endless supply of weapons to Ukraine is really the smartest move? Is it not possible to wish for a more meaningful discussion of the dangers of nuclear conflict? Why are dissenters vilified for reasoned and substantive criticism of Ukrainian right-wing radicals – and yes, nationalists? The resurgence of neo-Nazism and fascism is a touchy subject in much of Europe and America today. Why is Ukraine’s tarnished reputation silenced and even denied?
Meanwhile, as one former Marine general noted, “war is extortion. U.S. arms conglomerates are lining up for the trough. The fighting will take many more Ukrainian and Russian lives, but Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman will get rich. And the news and cable channels are full of guest analysts and “experts” – or rather, former military officers who have become consultants, but their current positions and clientele are not disclosed to viewers.
What is sorely lacking, whether on TV, on the Internet, or in Congress, is alternative views. The restrained views of those who disagree that compromise in negotiations is acquiescence, and those who demand assertive and tough diplomacy to cease fire and achieve a resolution; to restore Ukraine and turn it into a sovereign, independent and prosperous power.
“So tell me how you think this is going to end,” General David Petraeus asked The Washington Post columnist Rick Atkinson a few months after the start of the nearly decade-long war in Iraq. Ending the current fighting will require new thinking that can challenge the conventional wisdom of our time. As the respected American journalist Walter Lippmann once observed: “When everyone thinks the same thing, it means that no one thinks much.”