OPINION: Gaston Totally Wrong On Ukraine, Yet He Won’t Shut Up

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

by Robert Langdon

In the latest episode of the Prime Minister’s bizarre fixation with arguing his misguided stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his Chief of Staff and chief mouthpiece, Ambasador Lionel Hurst, on Thursday, released his customary post-Cabinet press notes, in which he wrote that the PM “reiterated his previous call, a week ago, for Ukraine to sue for peace”.

 

This is at least the third time that the Prime Minister has taken the stance that Ukraine is chiefly responsible for ending the illegal war that has been waged against it, on its own territory, by its larger, more powerful neighbour, Russia. Besides his insatiable appetite to be proven right in every case, and his bullish tendency to argue any stance until exhaustion alone prevents opposing views from being returned, I cannot understand why Gaston Browne is so determined to press this issue, in spite of the push back he has already received.

 

I fully endorse the role of leaders of government the world round, in openly expressing policy positions on matters of international importance. Too often we are silent on world affairs, seeking to leave it only to the larger more powerful nation to speak out about what goes on here or there. So my issue is not that the Prime Minister has offered a view on the subject of the war. My issue is that his view is an unreasonable one, and he clearly refuses to seriously consider the advice of those who have attempted to reign him in.

 

It is unreasonable to place the responsibility for this conflict, or for ending this conflict on Ukraine – a country that is defending its territory from an invading power. But this is what the Prime Minister has done three times now. In the first instance, he took to his radio station to say that were he the leader of Ukraine, he would not put his people through this conflict. He further stated (incorrectly) that the war was a result of Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO, and that Ukraine should abandon such ambition as a means to securing peace with Russia.

 

In the second instance, he returned to chastise the media for reporting on what he said and for seeking reaction from further afield. Having been criticized for the stance he took, he turned to put the blame on the press for “twisting his words”, while astoundingly, at the same time, doublin down on exactly what he said before – that Ukraine is chiefly responsible for ending the war that has been waged against it by its neighbour.

 

On this, the third occasion, he has, through his Chief of Staff, doubled down again to say that Ukraine is prolonging the war being waged against it, essentially by defending itself from invasion, and that it ought to “sue for peace”. Our Prime Minister has demonstrated a marked lack of understanding of the present situation in Europe and such a callous disregard for the principles of the rules-based international order.

 

It is vital when analysing the present conflict to understand the following points. Ukraine did not start the full-scale war with Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Most credible analysts agree that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was prompted by the desire of its President, Vladimir Putin, to keep Ukraine within Russia’s influence and within Russia’s control. It’s that simple.

 

Was the 2022 invasion Russia’s first action against Ukraine? No. In 2014, the Russo-Ukrainian War began when Russia (1) sent its military to annex a part of Ukraine called Crime and (2) armed and organised a rebellion in Ukraine’s eastern regions that border Russia, later sending Russian troops to support the rebels. Yes, please remember that Russia sponsored and fought a rebel war against the Ukrainian state for 8 years prior to its full invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. So when Gaston Browne was elected in 2014, Vladimir Putin’s military began destabilizing Ukraine the very same year. Obama was still US President.

 

Why did Putin’s Russia do this? Under Putin, Russia’s objective has been to keep Ukraine within its control and orbit, and the more Ukraine moves away from Russia, the more aggressive Russia would become – like an abusive boyfriend threatening to kill a woman if she tries to break-up with him. In this case, the abusive boyfriend is Vladimir Putin. In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests known as “Euromaidan” began in response to the then-Ukrainian President’s decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia.

 

Earlier that year, the Ukrainian parliament had overwhelmingly approved finalizing the agreement but Russia had pressured Ukraine to reject it. The scope of the protests widened, with calls for the resignation of the then-President and his government. Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations, and repressive anti-protest laws. This is what sparked Russia’s and Putin’s determination to subdue Ukraine – that fact that the people, for better or worse, openly demonstrated their rejection of Russian influence, autocracy, oligarchy, corruption, lack of freedom.

In response to the revolution of 2013/2014, Putin invaded Ukraine via Crimea, annexed the territory, and waged a rebel war in Ukraine’s east to destabilize the country.

 

What does NATO have to do with it? It has been much repeated by the Putin administration and those sympathetic to it, that Russia’s actions against Ukraine are justified, because Ukraine wishes to join NATO and NATO is a threat to Russia. This is misleading. Firstly, Ukraine had not made any serious moves toward NATO membership prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Secondly, it was only after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, that Ukraine would formally declare joining NATO a strategic policy objective three years later, in 2017.

 

Thirdly, NATO is not a threat to a peaceful Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance. I cannot stress this point enough. NATO is not a cabal of nations seeking to invade and conquer Russia, or laying claim to any territory of Russia’s. NATO’s mandate in Europe is to defend against Russian aggression. No one who has witnessed RUssia’s actions toward Ukraine can seriously say that they do not understand why NATO exists. It is precisely because Russia continues to be ruled by paranoid pathological autocratic leaders like Putin, that NATO still exists. NATO has no plans to invade Russia, only to strike if Russia should invade a NATO member country. So, the argument that NATO is a threat to Russia only flies if Russia continues to be aggressive and to threaten its neighbours with military and other measures.

 

You should also be able to reason, dear reader, that the expansion of NATO over the years, and since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, is the fault of Russia. NATO is not some group of bandits invading nations and forcing them to become a part of the alliance. Nations voluntarily join, with the approval of existing members. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia have voluntarily sought NATO membership and have been allowed to join.

 

Ask yourself, why? Would so many countries, some of them formerly part of the Soviet Union, others former communist states aligned to the Soviet Union, actively seek to put a buffer between themselves and the possibility of Russian aggression? Why? Because Russia, since the end of the Soviet Union, has demonstrated that it is (a) unwilling to accept the full independence and self-determination of the nations which it used to influence, (b) resents the liberalization of politics in these countries toward greater democracy and human rights, (c) fears the pace of political change reaching its own doorstep, and (d) is willing to use military and subversive measures to antagonize and undermine its neighbours.

 

Take Ukraine for example. In 2012, a poll showed that 28% of people in Ukraine supported NATO membership – less than 3/10. After Russia invaded Ukraine, occupied and annexed Crimea, and sent troops and sponsored rebels in Ukraine’s east beginning in 2014, just three years later by 2017 another poll found that some 69% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. Why? Because Russia had shown that it was unwilling to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and would use its military against the country.

 

So this notion of NATO as some big bad American-led wolf that is chomping at Russia’s doorstep is ridiculous. It is Russia that has the demonstrated track record of aggression in Europe to bolster its influence and power, and harken back to the time when it ruled over the Eastern communist bloc with repression, paranoia, and autocratic politics. Even now, Sweden and Finland which had long tried to appease Russia by keeping out of NATO during the Cold War and after, voluntarily sought the umbrella of NATO protection, having witnessed Russia’s larger scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Again, nations are driven into the alliance by the real threat of Russian aggression. And who can blame them?

 

So, the Prime Minister Gaston Browne is being misleading when he says that Ukraine should give up its NATO ambition in order to secure peace with Russia – that, or he is genuinely ignorant of the nuances involved. NATO ambition on the part of Ukraine is not what started Russian aggression against UKraine in 2014. NATO ambition was the result of Russian aggression. Additionally, his suggestion that giving up NATO membership ambitions would appease Russia is also frighteningly ignorant for a world leader. Russia’s actions in Ukraine suggest that it wants to remove the Ukrainian government, and Russify the entire country.

 

Where does Gaston Browne live? Has he been watching the news? Vladimir Putin has made numerous statements and speeches in which he has challenged the very sovereign right of Ukraine to its statehood. He has made it clear in his pronouncements that he seeks political control of the country, full stop. Additionally, Russia’s actions in the areas it occupies have included deporting Ukrainian children to Russia to be Russified, enforcing the Russian language, changing the school curriculum to support a pro-Russian view, moving Russians into places previously lived-in by Ukrainians, and repression of any right to protest, speak, or think outside of what Vladimir Putin approves.

 

What is amazing, is that nowhere in this latest statement on Ukraine, was the Prime Minister quoted as saying that Russia ought to withdraw its troops from the sovereign territory of its neighbour, stop bombing its capital, and stop abducting its children. The PM is mum on the need for Russia to withdraw or even declare a ceasefire. Russia continues to try to advance on the battlefield. They are not satisfied with their gains. They want more Ukrainian territory. They tried to take the entire country at the onset of the war, but that failed, yet here we have PM Browne rather ignorantly saying “Give up on joining NATO, and then we can get down to peace”. The lack of depth to this man’s grasp of what is going on is palpable.

 

In addition to making no demands on Russia, the aggressor, and calling on the invaded party, Ukraine, to somehow “make peace” without being turned into a puppet state, the Prime Minister has also betrayed the allegiance he owes to most basic principles of the international order that dictate that might is not right, and large powers ought not to bully and britalized small states into serfdom. Ukraine is defending itself on its own territory from a nation led by a man who has on multiple occasions, expressed his belief that their country belongs to Russia, which essentially means that as  President of Russia, he fancies himself, the leader of Ukraine. Yet, Gaston Browne says, Ukraine ought to make peace? If the people of Ukraine are determined to defend their own nation from Russia’s invading forces, why is Gaston Browne calling upon them to “sue for peace”?

 

On a practical level – he says it is a war they cannot win. I shudder to think what Gaston Browne would do if he were actually charged with the defense of a nation from a foreign aggressor who had espoused that the state should not exist. He waxed eloquent about what he would do if he were in the Ukranian leader’s shoes, but seriously, what would he do? Under his leadership, they’d probably all be dead due to his total ignorance of who he is dealing with (Putin) and what Russia’s intentions under Putin are. He’d probably have made some deal which Putin would simply renege on, before blowing up his airplane and installing a puppet government.

 

Essentially, the PM has said that the Ukrainians should just accede to whatever demands Russia has in order to get Russia to stop bombing and killing them on their own land – terms which would surely include the Russification of the Ukrainian state. That is what “peace” with Russia means. You can’t have “peace” unless Russia stops the invasion. And the only terms upon which Russia would stop, would include a raft of measures to subordinate the Ukrainian state to Russia, and Putin.

 

If the Ukrainian people are determined to give their lives to fight against that, then who are we to tell them the cost of their lives is not worth it?

 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

 

 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

 

 

 

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]