From Korea To Libya: On The Future Of Ukraine And NATO’s Neverending Wars

[Boats]

From Korea To Libya: On The Future Of Ukraine And NATO’s Neverending Wars
By: Ranzy Baroud of Scoops Top Stories 04-05-22
Re: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL22...nding-wars.htm

Much has been said and written about media bias and double standards in the West’s response to the Russia-Ukraine war, when compared with other wars and military conflicts across the world, especially in the Middle East and the Global South. Less obvious is how such hypocrisy is a reflection of a much larger phenomenon which governs the West’s relationship to war and conflict zones.

On March 19, Iraq commemorated the 19th anniversary of the US invasion which killed, according to modest estimates, over a million Iraqis. The consequences of that war were equally devastating as it destabilized the entire Middle East region, leading to various civil and proxy wars. The Arab world is reeling under that horrific experience to this day.

Also, on March 19, the eleventh anniversary of the NATO war on Libya was commemorated and followed, five days later, by the 23rd anniversary of the NATO war on Yugoslavia. Like every NATO-led war since the inception of the alliance in 1949, these wars resulted in widespread devastation and tragic death tolls.

None of these wars, starting with the NATO intervention in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, have stabilized any of the warring regions. Iraq is still as vulnerable to terrorism and outside military interventions and, in many ways, remains an occupied country. Libya is divided among various warring camps, and a return to civil war remains a real possibility.

Yet, enthusiasm for war remains high, as if over seventy years of failed military interventions have not taught us any meaningful lessons. Daily, news headlines tell us that the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, Spain or some other western power have decided to ship a new kind of ‘lethal weapons’ to Ukraine. Billions of dollars have already been allocated by Western countries to contribute to the war in Ukraine.

In contrast, very little has been done to offer platforms for diplomatic, non-violent solutions. A handful of countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia have offered mediation or insisted on a diplomatic solution to the war, arguing, as China’s foreign ministry reiterated on March 18, that “all sides need to jointly support Russia and Ukraine in having dialogue and negotiation that will produce results and lead to peace”.

Though the violation of the sovereignty of any country is illegal under international law, and is a stark violation of the United Nations Charter, this does not mean that the only solution to violence is counter-violence. This cannot be truer in the case of Russia and Ukraine, as a state of civil war has existed in Eastern Ukraine for eight years, harvesting thousands of lives and depriving whole communities from any sense of peace or security. NATO’s weapons cannot possibly address the root causes of this communal struggle. On the contrary, they can only fuel it further.

If more weapons were the answer, the conflict would have been resolved years ago. According to the BBC, the US has already allocated $2.7bn to Ukraine over the last eight years, long before the current war. This massive arsenal included “anti-tank and anti-armor weapons … US-made sniper (rifles), ammunition and accessories”.

The speed with which additional military aid has poured into Ukraine following the Russian military operations on February 24 is unprecedented in modern history. This raises not only political or legal questions, but moral questions as well - the eagerness to fund war and the lack of enthusiasm to help countries rebuild.

After 21 years of US war and invasion of Afghanistan, resulting in a humanitarian and refugee crisis, Kabul is now largely left on its own. Last September, the UN refugee agency warned that “a major humanitarian crisis is looming in Afghanistan”, yet nothing has been done to address this ‘looming’ crisis, which has greatly worsened since then.

Afghani refugees are rarely welcomed in Europe. The same is true for refugees coming from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali and other conflicts that directly or indirectly involved NATO. This hypocrisy is accentuated when we consider international initiatives that aim to support war refugees, or rebuild the economies of war-torn nations.

Compare the lack of enthusiasm in supporting war-torn nations with the West’s unparalleled euphoria in providing weapons to Ukraine. Sadly, it will not be long before the millions of Ukrainian refugees who have left their country in recent weeks become a burden on Europe, thus subjected to the same kind of mainstream criticism and far-right attacks.

While it is true that the West’s attitude towards Ukraine is different from its attitude towards victims of western interventions, one has to be careful before supposing that the ‘privileged’ Ukrainains will ultimately be better off than the victims of war throughout the Middle East. As the war drags on, Ukraine will continue to suffer, either the direct impact of the war or the collective trauma that will surely follow. The amassing of NATO weapons in Ukraine, as was the case of Libya, will likely backfire. In Libya, NATO’s weapons fueled the country’s decade long civil war.

Ukraine needs peace and security, not perpetual war that is designed to serve the strategic interests of certain countries or military alliances. Though military invasions must be wholly rejected, whether in Iraq or Ukraine, turning Ukraine into another convenient zone of perpetual geopolitical struggle between NATO and Russia is not the answer.

About this writer - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is “Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out”. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: There are always critics who have to make a point of the most
obvious happenings from the beginning to the endings. Nobody wants conflicts
or wars. It's consquences result in killings and destruction to the people's & land's.
The motive's are mixed at times - and I can (as many others) why did this have
to happen? Looking at the issues from afar vr's the issues from within - they are
always the factors in any conflict.

Man's inhumanity to Man of late is pure brutality to mass murder - which is
unacceptable to the majority of any people's - especially those that can't fight
back.
-
World Peace is a long way off - therefore - the under-dogs will need out-sider's
to offset - or at least stop the crulity - from those who would do them harm.
Third world countries are always targets - for those who would profit from
their demise. Or that they have coal - or oil reserves - that they do not have.
And once again the religeous issues and/or belief's contradic those of other
lands could also trigger a local war.
-
World order is difficult - and ever since man walked this earth - he has killed
someone and/or animal in order to survive. Is it right - you'd have to be there
to know the circumstances of these issues. To mistreat or take from others
seems to me to influence an indifference to those people's - not understood
or recognized - by the aggressors. Terror seems to rule the smaller nations
and at the same time - they degrade the current landowners - as unworthy
of his or her property - and they take it from them - because they can.
-
These are engrained habits of our humanity in the past - to take from one
another - even his/her lives - their lands & homes, their materials and foods.
Why? - Because they can - unless you fight back which is always counter-active
then walking away. People fight back to protect their families & lands.
-
These are man's early comandments to survive. Whether it be animal or
mankind - they've learned to fightback - hence war's and death is the
only finish. Compromise is normally non-existant its also called survival of
the fittest as another expression.
-
Human's have not been able to rectify the engrained safeguards or habits
of their past. We are but intelligent animals with built-in wariness.
-
I'm sure other's have a better way to express my writings above.