[This cautiously drafted letter said we need a component of policy
in Ukraine that includes a cease-fire and diplomacy. The outrage that
greeted this approach shows how much work is needed to stop the
control militarism has on our foreign policy. ]
[[link removed]]

PHYLLIS BENNIS ON PROGRESSIVE DEMS RETRACTING LETTER URGING DIPLOMACY
TO END UKRAINE WAR  
[[link removed]]


 

October 27, 2022
Democracy Now
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ This cautiously drafted letter said we need a component of policy
in Ukraine that includes a cease-fire and diplomacy. The outrage that
greeted this approach shows how much work is needed to stop the
control militarism has on our foreign policy. _

,

 

A group of progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives this
week sent, then retracted, a public letter urging the Biden
Administration to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia to end the
war in Ukraine while continuing to arm and support the government in
Kyiv. The letter was signed by 30 lawmakers from the Congressional
Progressive Caucus and saw an immediate and fierce backlash, as
critics said it undermined Ukraine’s position and downplayed Russian
atrocities. Progressive Caucus chair Congressmember Pramilya Jayapal
issued a retraction less than 24 hours after it was published, blaming
her staff for improperly releasing it. Meanwhile, some signatories
said they had signed the letter months earlier when the war was at a
much different stage and that they were unaware it would be released
now. Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says
ignoring diplomatic channels will only prolong the war. “The level
of outrage that greeted this very careful sort of commonsense approach
shows us how much work is still needed … to stop the kind of control
that militarism seems to have on our assumptions about what foreign
policy looks like,” says Bennis.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is _Democracy Now!_, Democracynow.org
[[link removed]], the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy
Goodman. joined by _Democracy Now!_ cohost Nermeen Shaikh. Hi,
Nermeen.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hi, Amy, and welcome to our listeners and viewers
across the country and around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at the war in Ukraine
and a controversy on Capitol Hill over a call for Biden to push for
talks to end the Ukraine war. On Monday, the Congressional Progressive
Caucus sent a letter to the White House which urged the Biden
administration to pursue direct negotiations with Russia for a
ceasefire in Ukraine while continuing to arm the Ukrainian military.
The letter, which was signed by 30 Democrats, stated in part “we
urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States
has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling
efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire…This is
consistent with your recognition that ’there’s going to have to be
a negotiated settlement here’ and your concern that Vladimir Putin
’doesn’t have a way out right now, and I’m trying to figure out
what we do about that.’”

The release of the letter was soon attacked by other Democrats.
Democratic Congressmember Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts called it
an “olive branch to a war criminal who is losing his war.”
Within a day, the Congressional Progressive Caucus withdrew the
letter. Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal issued a statement
saying, “The letter was drafted several months ago but,
unfortunately, was released by staff without vetting. Because of the
timing, our message is being conflated by some as being equivalent to
the recent statement by Republican Leader McCarthy threatening an end
to aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over.” Last week, Kevin
McCarthy warned Republicans won’t give Ukraine a “blank check”
if the GOP regains control of Congress. While Jayapal withdrew the
letter, some progressive lawmakers have defended the letter’s
message, like Congressmember Ro Khanna who appeared
on CNN Wednesday.

REP. RO KHANNA: I have supported every package of giving aid to
Ukraine and I plan to support continuing to arm Ukraine. All the
letter said is that we, at the same time that we stand with Ukraine,
need to make sure that we are reducing the risk for nuclear war, that
we are engaging in talks with the Russians to make sure that the
conflict doesn’t escalate. We need to support Ukraine with arms and
we need diplomacy. That’s common sense.

AMY GOODMAN: This all comes as fears grow that the war in Ukraine
may turn nuclear. On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin
oversaw annual drills of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.
Meanwhile, _Politico_ reports the United States has moved up plans
to deploy upgraded nuclear weapons to Europe. To talk more about the
controversy around the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s letter and
what U.S. diplomatic efforts could entail, we are joined by Phyllis
Bennis, Author and Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Her
recent piece for _The Progressive_ is headlined It’s Time for
Diplomacy
[[link removed]].
Phyllis, welcome back to _Democracy Now!_ Can you lay out what
happened? Talk about the content of this letter, the fact that 30
congressmembers signed on, that it was released and then retracted.

PHYLLIS BENNIS: What happened was very much reflected in Ro
Khanna’s statement just now. The letter was a very carefully drawn
mild letter that was very important because there had not been an
official congressional statement urging the Biden administration to
call for diplomacy. On the contrary, we have seen significant evidence
that the administration has really not supported the idea of moving
towards a diplomatic approach in Ukraine along with the military aid
that they are providing, despite the fact that there have been
statements from President Biden and others that this war, like all
wars, will end with some kind of diplomacy. The issue is always, at
what cost, and after how long? Are we going to wait until this war
becomes a long-standing war of attrition or with all of the additional
deaths that that could lead to? Or are we going to say there needs to
be a diplomatic component right away?

Some of us, myself included, have been saying right from the
beginning—my first piece on the war that was drafted just a day
after the illegal Russian invasion, recognized that there was going to
have to be a cease-fire then. There needed to be a cease-fire on day
one, a cease-fire when Russia was succeeding in pulling in more
territory to itself. It needed a cease-fire when the Ukrainians were
able to seize the offensive and take back some of that territory. And
we need a cease-fire now.

So this letter was actually a very cautiously, mildly drafted letter
that said, as Ro Khanna said and as you indicated in reading it, that
we need an additional component of policy in Ukraine that needs to
include a cease-fire and diplomacy. The level of outrage that greeted
this very careful sort of commonsense approach shows us how much work
is still needed by our movement and more broadly in society to stop
the kind of control that militarism seems to have on our assumptions
about what foreign policy looks like. The notion that this could be
solely a situation where the U.S. continues to send tens of billions
of dollars with all of the weapons that are ever required by
Ukraine—to what end? What is the endgame here? Those are not the
questions unfortunately that are being asked. Instead, the focus has
been on the timing, and did the letter match the position of the
Republicans. Which of course, it didn’t, but that isn’t really the
important part. The important part is to look at the need for a
cease-fire and diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As you said, because the letter was in some sense
quite mild, what do you think accounts for the fact that more
conservatives or mainstream Democrats responded with such vehemence?
And what about this one brief clause in the letter that said that
Putin at the moment, Russia at the moment, does not have a way out; he
needs to be given a way out? what exactly would that mean?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: I think it means a series of steps. The first step
in any of these situations is you need a cease-fire. A cease-fire is
not sufficient. A cease-fire is not a guarantee you’re going to be
able to end the war in a just way anytime soon, but it sets the stage
that you can _begin_ the process of negotiations. I think what the
letter was referring to in that point was that there have been public
and private, from what we understand, positions taken by the U.S.
administration and it has certainly been true in Congress and in much
of the mass media in this country, that says there is no room for
diplomacy here, that this is going to be a war that is ended with a
great Ukrainian victory. One imagines that there is this sense it is
going to be like World War II where the war ends with a complete
surrender and a flag-raising and some band is playing “Hail to Some
Chief” and everybody will be happy. It’s not going to work that
way. I think everybody acknowledges that, who is serious about
examining both the political and the military realities of this war,
that there’s going to have to be some kind of diplomacy.

That doesn’t mean that the United States, despite the fact that the
U.S. is providing such enormous amounts of money and arms to Ukraine
for its resistance, that doesn’t mean that the U.S. has the right to
tell the Ukrainians how they should engage in diplomacy, what they
should concede, if anything. But it does mean that we cannot pretend
that while providing $65 billion so far, overwhelmingly for the
military—not quite all of it, but most of it—with another $50
billion under discussion now in Congress, and all of these weapons,
all of this training, that we can then also simultaneously stand back
and act like a cheerleader that is not connected to the war that is
underway.

The U.S. has significant issues of diplomacy that need to be raised
with Russia that do not depend on what the Ukrainian decisions are
about their diplomacy with Russia. The U.S. needs to be negotiating
with Russia about reopening all of these abandoned nuclear and
conventional arms treaties that right now pretty much don’t exist at
all. It makes everything much more dangerous. The U.S. needs to be
negotiating with Russia on the question of, what are the consequences
of building a new U.S. military base in Poland, less than 100 miles
from the Russian border? Talk about provocation; this is quite serious
and there needs to be some discussion about that. These are things
that the U.S. can be negotiating with Russia that don’t go to the
Ukrainian position, making clear to Russia that when there is a
cease-fire, that U.S.-imposed sanctions will begin to be lifted is
crucial, because without that, there is no real incentive for Russia.

We know while the sanctions are in place, I assume that they are
looking to the precedent the U.S. set in Iraq when it made very clear
at the United Nations that at a certain point it didn’t matter
whether Saddam Hussein allowed in the U.N. inspectors or not; the
sanctions were simply not going to be lifted anyway. That took away
any incentive that the sanctions may ever have had to encourage a
change in behavior. There needs to be U.S.-Russian negotiations on all
of those issues which are not dependent on the views of Ukraine which
of course are crucial in determining the nature of the long-standing
need for real diplomacy to end this war. But first there needs to be a
cease-fire to allow all of that to go forward.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Let’s talk about what attempts, if any, the
significant ones there have been to reach a cease-fire either
initiated by the Europeans—it’s Macron in France who has sustained
conversation with the Russians since the invasion and even prior to
it. Just this past weekend, Lloyd Austin had conversations with his
Russian counterpart although no details were released of their
conversations. The one thing that was told about the conversation, the
one detail that was revealed is that Austin reportedly emphasized the
importance of maintaining lines of communication between Russia and
the U.S. Their conversation was the first in several months. May was
the last time they spoke.

Again, reportedly, the U.S. did press for a cease-fire, which the
Russians rejected on the grounds that the U.S. is not willing to talk
to the Russians as equals. In talks with NATO countries Turkey,
France and Britain, who to varying degrees have urged a cease-fire,
Russia has been unwilling to budge. These are according to news
reports in Europe as well as here. Your response to that? How can
pressure be brought to bear on Russia, which is of course the
aggressor in this war?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Russia is indeed the aggressor in this war on the
ground. There is the question of the larger, longer-lasting
geopolitical war that’s underway that goes back many, many years in
which the U.S. and NATO have played a very provocative role against
Russia. But there is no question that none of those provocations
justified any of the Russian moves. This is Russian aggression, pure
and simple.

I think there are reports that have other views as well that indicate
both British and perhaps other NATO reports about indications that
there is not support for a cease-fire coming from NATO and the other
U.S. allies. I think the fact all of these reports are based on
evidence of discussions with diplomats and with others that are not
identified, that can’t be confirmed, it makes it very difficult to
know, is there is actually support among NATO leaders for a
cease-fire or not. There were certainly reports about the role of
Boris Johnson going to meet with Zelenskyy and urging him not to reach
a cease-fire. I don’t think that Zelenskyy is necessarily getting
only one position from his allies. He is of course completely
dependent on NATO and particularly on the United States for both
economic and military support. But I think that the question needs to
be raised to our own government, which is playing such a crucial role
in the war, about the need to support a cease-fire immediately and
longer-term negotiations to end the war.

The meeting that you reference between the Secretary of Defense Lloyd
Austin and his Russian counterpart was very important—not meeting; a
telephone call—because there had not been communication since last
May. That makes things particularly dangerous on the question of the
potential escalation to a nuclear exchange, which is what makes the
war in Ukraine so incredibly dangerous, so much more dangerous
globally than any of the horrific wars we have seen over the last 20
years, more than the war in Iraq, more than the war in Afghanistan,
despite the horrific level of destruction that was wrought in those
countries by the U.S. invasions and occupations. Those wars never
threatened to erupt into a globally impactful nuclear exchange between
the United States and Russia, which together of course control 90% of
the nuclear weapons in the world.

In the situation of Ukraine, that is very different. There _is_ a
threat of that kind of escalation. What we don’t have in Ukraine
right now is what the U.S. speaks of as a deconfliction line, which
basically means a direct line of communication, a hotline, telephone,
whether by computer or whatever form, that we did have for example in
Syria when you had a history of the U.S. and Russia supporting proxy
forces on opposite sides. They made sure that while neither Russia in
Aleppo or the United States in Raqqa, for instance, where those two
cities were destroyed by the two global powers, the U.S. and Russia
didn’t care very much whether they killed enormous numbers of Syrian
civilians, which they did with their bombing in those two cities, but
they were both very concerned about not killing the other side. The
U.S. did not want to kill any Russian soldiers. The Russians were just
as concerned that they not kill any U.S. soldiers or pilots or
whatever. As a result, they had a direct means of communication to
call off any mistaken escalation and to warn the other side when they
were planning to bomb in a certain area, saying “We’re going to
bomb in X place, get your people out of there.” And it worked.

We don’t have that in Ukraine, and that means things are much more
dangerous in terms of a potential escalation maybe with neither side
actually _intending_ to use a nuclear weapon. And right now I
don’t see any evidence that either Putin nor President Biden have
any intention of using nuclear weapons, but the fact that there have
been these statements from Russia that seem to imply pretty directly a
nuclear threat as well as potentially a threat of the use of other
nonconventional weapons—chemical, nuclear or biological—and for
the U.S., of course, a very provocative move sending 100 upgraded
versions of one of the most commonly deployed nuclear weapons in
Europe. There are now of course five countries in
Europe, NATO members, that are holding U.S. nuclear weapons under
U.S. control in their territory; they now are being upgraded. That is
a deliberate nuclear escalation. That’s a deliberate nuclear threat.
So the threats are coming from both sides.

I don’t believe either president has any intention of using a
nuclear weapon, but when there are nuclear weapons involved, until
they are abolished, when they are involved in this theater of war and
the two nuclear powers are directly engaged, the threat of a nuclear
escalation is dramatic, no matter how small it is. If it is anything
other than zero—if it’s anything other than zero—that’s way
too high a risk to take.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We only have 30 seconds now, but next month Biden
and Putin are both scheduled to attend the G20 meeting in Bali. Do you
have any hope that there could be some communication between the two
there?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: We have to hope. Of course. There needs to be that
kind of communication, whether it is between the two leaders, which of
course would be very visible and the world’s press would be
watching, or whether it is at a lower level of assistants, of aides,
meeting to say, “Okay, on these bases, we will meet.” There needs
to be that kind of discussion for a cease-fire immediately and
negotiations to end this horrific war, to stop the killing of
Ukrainian civilians, stop the destruction of the country, the
destruction of these cities. The impact of this war on the globe as a
whole, not only in Ukraine—environmentally, in terms of the threat
of famine as a result; the militarization of Europe and in so much of
the rest of the world as a result of this war—demands that there be
a move towards an immediate cease-fire and a move towards diplomacy.

* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* Militarism
[[link removed]]
* Progressive Caucus
[[link removed]]
* Democratic Party
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]