War in Ukraine: the beginning of World War III

The war in Ukraine: international politics must change


Epilogue: Should the Russians' invasion of Ukraine be condemned? It is somewhat easy and non-binding to say yes to this. Of course war is madness; moreover, the Russians are shooting at a brother nation. I think it would be better to investigate whether that war could have been avoided. This war, no matter how bad, was inevitable. The blame lies mainly with the US and NATO, which, from the Russians' point of view, have increasingly encircled their country over the past thirty years. They have reason to see this as a danger, as the US and NATO countries have attacked Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan before. The invasion of the Russians was foreseen by the Americans. That war and all the deaths could therefore have been avoided by making an agreement with Russia that Ukraine and the Baltic states, after withdrawal from NATO membership, would be neutral for the next ten years. However, that agreement is an illusion. The US has an economic interest in there being no rapprochement between Europe and Russia, and economic interests there take priority over ethical principles.

Ultimately, the main victims will be the Russian people and the Europeans. There should be a statesman in Europe who strives for a European Confederation that includes Russia and Israel. That Confederation will surely become the most important world power that, given the enormous challenges that befall us in this 21st century, can give priority to ethics in world politics. Provided that that statesman declares the European Confederation a Judeo-Christian civilization.

This is what I stand for in my books, because if this proposal of a European Confederation is not followed, then hell awaits us. In conclusion: I condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I condemn even more strongly the policies of the US and NATO.

P.S. The fierce resistance of the Ukrainians at this moment (February 26) is admirable and heartwarming.Proof that nationalism of a sovereign state

 gives strength to a people. I hope that when the oligarchs in Russia lose power, there will be a new understanding between these peoples (and that the US and NATO again do not oppose this).

This is what I advocate in my books, because if this proposal of a European Confederation is not followed, then hell awaits us (read my free e-book: The Age of Fear and Trembling). In conclusion: I condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I condemn even more strongly the policies of the US and NATO.

I am writing this analysis of Russia's war against Ukraine as someone who has carried out scientific research for fifty years. I have learned to look at events from a distance. As a neutral spectator. As an objective observer. I define scientific inquiry as examining facts in such a way that even your most cherished beliefs can be rejected.

No normal person would want a war. Yet the war in Ukraine is a necessary evil for Russia. From a Russian point of view, NATO has increasingly surrounded their country in recent decades. They see NATO as an enemy alliance.

In Ukraine, pro-Russian and pro-Western citizens were pitted against each other by an incessant propaganda. The Ukrainian people, which for centuries were seen as a brother nation of the Russians, belong to the Russian empire.

The US has driven a wedge between the European Union and Russia. The US's economic self-interest is the main driver. The US absolutely does not want a new power bloc to arise through an alliance between the EU countries and Russia. The European heads of government obediently follow the lead of the Americans and the mainstream media does not deviate from the prescribed course.

Sanctions will not help in this war. Russia is being pushed further into the corner. The contradiction between the European Union and Russia is intensifying. The sanctions will also, and above all, have negative consequences for Europeans.

If the West continues with this policy, we can fear the worst. A choice must be made by European leaders between two options:

Option 1: Continuation of current policy. A new Cold War is coming and World War III becomes a possibility.. Tensions can flare up again and again. This can be facilitated by conflicts elsewhere in the world, such as over Taiwan, between North and South Korea, in the Middle East, between Pakistan and India. There are so many potential fires in the world that an escalation on a global level is more than likely. Europe will fall into deep poverty. The consequences of climate change are no longer being addressed. The world is going to be hell for many. Europe's cultural heritage can be destroyed.

Option 2: No sanctions against Russia. The Europeans are going to negotiate with the Russians. We listen to each other's wishes and concerns. The European Union is being dissolved and replaced by a confederation of sovereign countries of which Russia is also a part. Pragmatical agreements are made between the countries of the European Confederation in the fields of economy, culture, technology, scientific research, and defense. Similar agreements are also made with other countries in the world. The countries do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, not even with regard to human rights. Each country tries to set an example in the hope that other peoples will be inspired by it. The countries pay particular attention to the positive that each country has to offer.

May I add that if the new European Confederation proclaims itself as a civilization with a Judeo-Christian foundation, we will be an example to the whole world. This foundation means forgiveness, mercy, tolerance and love for one's neighbor, including the enemy. Then the 21st century, despite the many challenges, will be the best century ever.

Should we fear that our government leaders are too weak to make the right choice? Will there no longer be a statesman in Europe? Will the atmosphere become so polarized that there is only room for black-and-white thinking and Putin is portrayed as a kind of devil? Then I hold my breath and we can fear the worst.

Soon it will be too late and our European civilization will no longer represent anything.



See also: Peter Hitchens on the war in Ukraine

A war is coming, that for sure

1. Is there war yet?

It is not always clear whether or not we are at war. Is cyberwar a real war? If yes, then there is already a world war going on. A military symposium at Norwich University (a military academy) in September 2019 emphasized that the wars to come will be a mixture of all kinds of threats and attacks, from the Internet, to economic and financial markets, to acts of war in the space, combat behind enemy lines, and so on. Artificial intelligence will play an increasingly important role, with the question to what extent the military should base their decisions on this (such as with drones that operate in enemy territory and are deployed from a bunker thousands of km away). 

On the world stage, we see many barbaric acts, such as killing civilians with poison gas. The world often watches, which erodes morality further and further. In this symposium it was emphasized that following moral rules for military personnel is extremely important, especially with all new technologies. A distinction must be made between professional soldiers and barbarians. Barbarians are those who place anti-aircraft guns at schools and hospitals, transport militias in ambulances and commit unimaginable atrocities (everyone knows who is meant by this. Unfortunately, the barbarians are also represented in the UN).

Professional soldiers adhere to a moral code. History shows that professionals always beat barbarians. They win the hearts and trust of the people. The moral code also means that there is empathy for the peoples who suffer in battle. A world without empathy would be hell on earth.

It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen in the coming years. A few conceivable scenarios follow. It is not a question of whether these scenarios are realistic, but whether we are prepared for the coming calamities and how we can prepare ourselves. Nor is it about pessimism or optimism, because we largely determine the future ourselves. This is a risk analysis that can help us prepare well for what is to come.

2. A warning from a former CIA director

A former CIA director, George Beebe , describes, in his book “ The Russia trap: How our shadow war with Russia could escalate to World War III ” (2019), how a combination of circumstances can lead to a third world war that nobody wants. Beebe warns against oversimplifying things, such as the assumption that Russia is an ambitious, aggressive state that wants to expand its power ever further. This would be similar to World War II where Germany was the aggressor. The situation now resembles the First World War. Even then, no one wanted that war, but the attack in Sarajevo was the trigger that led to a terrible escalation. Then there was no aggressive state that wanted to expand its territory. Beebe sees the cause of the First World War as a 'system problem' : the combination of many factors led countries to go to war, such as new technologies that were seen as a major threat, alliances between countries, conflicting interests and wrong perceptions of the intentions of 'enemy' powers.

Now we are in a similar situation. After the end of the Cold War, a vacuum arose in Eastern Europe . This was filled by an expansion of NATO. This was a threat to Russia, as evidenced by the tensions surrounding Ukraine. In the perception of the Russians, their country is surrounded by hostile states, whose aim is to change the regime in Russia and make their country fall to pieces. With new technologies, both Western countries and Russia are trying to harm each other or undermine the domestic situation. A true cyber war is raging back and forth. Even the American elections are said to have been influenced by the Russians.

That cyber war can easily escalate into World War III. We can hardly defend ourselves against it. If our computer system is hacked, we can detect it, but it is almost impossible to take preventive measures. So it's possible that an enemy power hacks into US satellites, cuts power across the country and sabotage the nuclear facilities. If this is discovered, it will be too late. In this situation, the principle of mutual deterrence, as it was during the Cold War, does not apply.

Both the West and Russia have become very vulnerable in this internet age. This situation is very risky, according to Beebe. It just has to go wrong and an escalation can follow. We are already seeing that Russia and the US have opposing interests in Syria, Ukraine and Iran. Here too a 'system problem' can easily arise and we find ourselves, without anyone deeming it desirable, in the Third World War.

3. The situation in Ukraine (my personal view)

With the threatening situation in Ukraine, the hypocrisy of the western powers should be pointed out. This situation is comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when the Soviet Union wanted to place missiles on that island. Years before that, the US had already placed missiles in Turkey. Those missiles were aimed at the Soviet Union. Now we see NATO expanding further and further east. It is obvious that Russia feels threatened (so who is to blame for the current tensions?). The NATO countries had also promised the Russians not to expand an inch further east if Russia agreed to reunify Germany. Personally, I don't like to belong to an alliance that has broken its word.

Without adopting ideological positions, the following scenario seems attractive to me. Russia shares our European culture. If there is a European Confederation of which Russia is also a member (as well as Israel) and Russia joins NATO (preferably a NATO without the US), this great European confederation will become a top-tier global power. That the Americans will want to prevent this at all costs is predictable, because that would stand in the way of their economic imperialism; they therefore benefit from the conflict in Ukraine. There is a lot of good to be said about the United States and if there is a famine somewhere the US offers very generous aid, but in international politics one standard supersedes all other ethical standards and that is: 'make a profit’.

If politics is inspired by Judeo-Christian ethics within the new European confederation, the 21st century will be the best century ever for the entire world, despite all the challenges that are coming our way (pandemics, consequences of climate change, mass immigration,... ). If we take our Judeo-Christian civilization seriously, responsible behavior is always the overriding standard (responsibility to our neighbors and to the environment).

If the US and the EU continue to intimidate Russia and start a war, the Europeans will be the main victims. This could mean the end of our prosperity. The EU no longer plays a significant political role on the world stage and after the new war the whole world laughs at us.

We are therefore faced with a choice: either we as Europeans enter into an alliance with our brother people in Russia, or we continue with the current policy of confrontation and intimidation. In the first case, we become a superpower that can bring peace and justice to the whole world. In the second case, we will fall into disrepair and our children and grandchildren will live in great poverty. Unfortunately, Europe lacks statesmen who face the facts and dare to move in new political directions.

4. How the West lost Russia

My view is confirmed by Robert Morley, a former US National Security Council employee, in a letter to The Economist dated January 29, 2022:

„ How the West lost Russia: Little has been said about how actions taken by the West with regard to Russia since 1991 have limited the security options available to us today. Those decisions have not only complicated our relationship with Russia but also impeded the establishment of democracy in that country. You ( The Economist, ed. ) asserted that ' NATO is a defensive alliance ' . It is not perceived that way in Russia. Our decision to expand into areas previously dominated by the Soviet Union reinforced the perception that NATO is aggressively pursuing policies detrimental to Russia 's political and security interests. Russians find it difficult to understand how NATO membership to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania enhances the security of countries like Belgium, France and Iceland. Estonia is only 200 miles from St Petersburg. The Russian reaction should have been expected. It is relatively moderate when compared with the American reaction to Moscow 's effort to establish a military presence in Cuba during the 1960s. We would have benefited more my coming up with something the Baltic countries short of NATO membership that still enhances security. These decisions have helped facilitate the rise of demagoguery in Moscow. In a way, we helped create opportunities for people like Vladimir Putin to rule. Now we have no other option than to deal with his like ”.

5. Conclusion

The EU is the worst possible agency to prepare for possible aggression from outside. A statesman has no chance to emerge in this construction. Any form of leadership is being undermined by the technocrats. Only a coup in several countries can save us.

Personally, I advocate a European Confederation of nation-states, because in the nation-state we can find the power and solidarity to be strong. Strong national states can make good agreements for a common defense and solidarity economy. Germany is wary of building its own army, given what happened in the last century. This is a mistake: a powerful German army may be necessary in this century to ensure peace and more justice in the world.

Within a confederation, the sovereign countries can become much stronger than they are now, so that Europe can play a positive role on the world stage and contribute in solidarity to the flourishing of Islamic countries and black Africa.

other texts

   © Juliaan Van Acker 2024