What is happening in Ukraine is horrific, unforgivable and unjustifiable. I want to make this clear before getting into my somewhat historical subject and risking being criticized for trivializing horror. I’m simply trying to remind you that understanding the following page sometimes requires revisiting the previous one.
Posted yesterday at 10:00 a.m.
Those of my age have known well this time when the world was separated into two great powers: the Eastern bloc, under the leadership of the Soviet Union, and the Western bloc, with the United States at the center. . The Cold War was in full swing, and each side was secretly working on weapons of mass deterrence. This is how, in large part, we ended up with these nuclear arsenals capable today of erasing us from the biosphere in the event of a major crisis. At that time, in every corner of the world, Westerners and Soviets were demonizing and clashing through foreign governments, popular revolts, revolutionary guerrillas and liberation movements.
The oldest remember the political crisis of October 1962, when the world came within a hair’s breadth of falling into a third world war. America was then furious to discover that the Soviets were trying to install missiles in Cuba. As the Monroe Doctrine would have it, there was no question of a hostile power establishing itself so close to the American continent. Doesn’t this robbery remind us a bit of what Putin has been trying to tell the Western world since 2008 about the presence of NATO arsenals on Russia’s immediate borders?
Oddly, what was unacceptable to America in 1962 in the name of balance of power became an outlandish demand when made by the Russians.
To inscribe this inconsistency in current times, it is also enough to think of the ferocity with which, in the name of their internal security, the United States prevents the Chinese company Huawei from approaching its 5G antennas from its territory. Not only do they reject them, but they also pressure their Western allies to do the same.
The collapse of the Soviet adversary
But let’s go back to the old Cold War, which ended with a victory for the West. One day, the all-powerful Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) fell apart, and Putin, the very nationalist, witnessed in pain that day when President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned and transferred his power and the launch codes nuclear missiles from the Soviet bloc to Boris Yeltsin, who was then the president of the Russian Federation. The collapse of the Soviet adversary then shifted the balance towards a long period of Western world hegemony. The West could now unilaterally determine who was worthy and who deserved a beating to get back into the good graces of liberal democracies. For the rest of the world, opting for the path of democratization also became a way of showing off. In the name of this sometimes dogmatic promotion of democracy, the West, having become the planetary policeman, will go to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and so on.
Strangely, now that Europe is the scene of a horrible war, all these other military campaigns, which also did a lot of damage, are flying under the radar. Even bringing them up, as I do here, hurts people and brings them up to the barricades.
What Putin is doing in Ukraine is horrible, but what Bush did in the second Iraq war was just as horrible. Unless, of course, you are a follower of selective indignation and the hierarchy of suffering, as the American president seems to do. On March 2, during his State of the Union address, we saw Joe Biden almost talking about the invasion of Ukraine as a precedent since the end of the Cold War. I almost wanted to turn myself into a little genius and enter his brain to tell him:
“You know, Mr. President, not so long ago, another crank named Bush invaded Iraq with military means beyond belief.
— No, the two situations are not comparable, Genie.
— They are not superimposable, but are comparable in certain respects. Vladimir fantasizes a denazification of Ukraine and he explains to the Russians that he is going on a special mission to save the Ukrainians, while America…
“I’ll stop you right now, Genie. We did not go to save the Iraqis.
– Oh that, we realized it! But remember the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was about to use to slaughter his neighbors? The ones you had invented to go on the attack, but that we never found in the end? Sorry, my Joe, but it was with lies and propaganda that you tried to convince American opinion that this war was essential.
“Why are you wasting this crucial moment in my political life, Genie?”
– I’ll let you continue, but first, one last question.
“Okay, but do it quickly. We’re live on TV!
— During this criminal invasion of Iraq, which did not obtain UN approval, why did no Western nation lift a finger to ask for economic sanctions against America and the cowboy who was leading at the time?
“Go ask the Republicans on the other side of the room. They are the ones who invaded Iraq. But talk to them loud enough, they tend to turn a deaf ear to it! Besides, if you stay in the room for the rest of my speech, you will understand why they wanted to get their hands on this country. As soon as I start talking about going green, they’re going to pull out their violins, sing the praises of hydrocarbons and cry oil tears!
“Sorry to derail your speech a bit, my Joe. I just wanted to make you understand that, as my grandfather used to say, the thorn buried under the other’s foot is easier to remove than the one lodged in ours. Besides, you may have forgotten – I’ve been told that you sometimes lose bits of it – but you too voted for the war in Iraq, my Joe. »
A two-speed indignation
Let’s be clear, what is happening in Ukraine is an unforgivable horror. What I am trying to denounce here is this two-speed indignation of Western chancelleries in the face of planetary tragedies, depending on where they are taking place.
Let me also remind you that during this period when the Western world was the law and the planetary order, the border which separated the good guys and the bad guys as well as the democrats and the dictators was also quite porous.
Let’s say that Western values had a habit of vanishing into thin air when the business opportunities were very lucrative.
I am thinking here of this selective demonization which explains that Nicolás Maduro and Venezuela deserve to be smothered economically, but that Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia can have a journalist dismembered and wage a sordid war in Yemen without attracting too much of problems. Money and juicy contracts, especially those for arms sales, always end up erasing the images of horror in the memory of decision-makers watching petrodollars. I am also thinking of this inconsistency which explains that one day, the Iranian and Venezuelan regimes are pariahs, but the next day, when we try to avoid the collateral damage of the sanctions against Russia, we immediately send delegations to rehabilitate Maduro and we weigh on the accelerator of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Why ? Certainly not because these regimes have changed. This is largely done to avoid the popular discontent of American consumers over soaring gas prices as the midterm elections approach.
Defend freedom without compromising with the enemies of freedom
When we cherish freedom and equality, we must defend them at all times. We cannot, on the one hand, rise up against the fate reserved for women in Afghanistan and, on the other hand, accept that this discrimination can be practiced in Canada or in England in the name of this cultural relativism which is at the center of multiculturalist ideology. Democracy, freedom of expression and human rights are valuable achievements. We must defend them without compromising the enemies of freedom who offer us juicy business opportunities.
Unfortunately, by closing its eyes, accepting the unacceptable so as not to harm business or risk losing power, the Western world has ended up normalizing dictatorship.
Since the end of the Cold War, hasn’t turning a blind eye to the autocratic excesses of the Beijing regime been the only way to do good business in China? As soon as Beijing brandished the economic threat, the Western heads of state closed their trapdoor so as not to harm the sacrosanct economic growth and, consequently, their re-election. Today, times have changed, China has the means to match its ambitions and its political system is here for good. The Beijing regime has become a powerful spokesperson parading in broad daylight to convince the rest of the world that its model is that of the future.
The famous vote condemning the invasion of Ukraine at the UN General Assembly contained another important message that we have not taken the time to decode. All that was reported very massively in the media was that 141 countries condemned the invasion, 5 opposed it and 38 others abstained. Analyzed in this way, one can effectively say that a large majority of countries condemn the invasion of Ukraine. But if we look at this result in terms of population representativeness, it is unfortunately a little more than half of humanity who refused to condemn the invasion of Ukraine. However, the Reverend Desmond Tutu, a pillar of the struggle against apartheid, said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the camp of the aggressor. This is a silent portrait of the new opposition to democracy.
The French essayist Pierre Conesa has found an edifying formula to describe the significance of this vote. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, he said, half the planet said to the Western world: “This war is yours, and we want to tell you that you are no longer the only international community . »