Last night, around 4:00pm CET, a quick look at twitter before going to bed kept me glued to the screen instead: Russia had started a large-scale military operation in Ukraine and deployed troops there. And this is what Putin had to say about it: [2]
I didn't believe that such an invasion, let alone shelling and using destructive deterrents, would take place. I was already not believing the previous development, despite forewarnings by both US intelligence and the flair of my friend David Colas who even had a date by which Putin would be in Kiev. I still am very much puzzled and unclear as to the opportunity and sense of such an initiative, not even mentioning possible developments, still less than 24h hours after, with already reports of hundreds of soldier casualties from both sides, possibly some civilians too.
Of course, a trivial reaction would be to condemn war, denounce an act of aggression, blame Russia and drape oneself in an Ukrainian flag, etc. The first thing to realize is that this is not something that popped out from a whim of Putin's previous week-end. Instead, this is in direct line of a succession of such moves... from the opposite camp: Irak, Kosovo, Irak again, then recently Lybia, Syria and still others.
I remember the first war against Irak, in 1991. I was in bed, this time, and a child (13 years old). Actually, for reasons that I now forgot, with my brother, we had asked our mom to sleep in her bed, maybe because of the cold in this house of my childhood, that I sold a few months ago. We had to wake up very early for school. First to reach le Vernet la Varenne, 5km away, by car, and then from there, by bus, another 10km to Saint-Germain l'Herm, where School was starting at 8:00, meaning we were there at 7:45 or so. As I'm writing this, I can still feel myself in this bed, of the upper room, with the radio that got triggered by the alarm set to start the day, in what was still the deep night. I was unsure to understand correctly the hurried announcement rushing from the post, still cosy and half-asleep, but my mother confirmed with an anxious voice: «Les enfants, levez vous, c'est la guerre!» (?!) The radio was describing the bombing from the American coalition on Irak. I asked, worried if something was going to happen to us. «I don't know», replied my mother, «We still have to go to school. Wake up.» I see myself again, in the night, now outside and waiting for my mother to close the door, peering at the depth of an inscrutable dark sky through the breath vapour forming in the cold through my heavily clothed face, and still wondering "what will happen to us?" Until then, war had been an abstract concept. It was touching my soul for the first time. By then, I was of course lured by the Manichean picture of the rightful occident against the barbaric evil of less developed countries. I was quickly reassured by the turn of events that we were strong enough, probably more than for enforcing law and order, to keep the hostility far away from us. This was the first "CNN war", meaning, with massive, continuous and live news broadcasts from the front lines of the battle. Mind you, this one might even have been justified, with the Kuwait invasion. I seldom have the occasion to contemplate my teen ages and when I do, this is not to ponder at the geopolitics of the time but to entertain the nostalgia and memories of this child now long gone.
Already with the Kosovo war, in 1998, I was not buying the narrative. There was still the TV painting a clear picture of the responsibilities, incriminating for Serbia, of duties and moral right for the Occident. But there was also my father, who—I don't know how or where from, will never know now—was harshly critical of the Americans and their imperialism, and was already educating me in the notion of state sovereignty, alliances and vassalization. I got horrified, this time, of the NATO bombings on the country, I remember actually rejoicing at the gunning down of an American airplane (the pilot could eject himself and was not captured), but I remember the pride of local people, peasants, pausing with the debris of the aircraft. I felt it as a humiliation that the sheer display of force could submit, with no control, no opposition, the will of a little nation which, I was explained by my father, had historical ties with us, the French people. I remember on TV a Serbian saying to the French journalists, speaking English to him: "if there is a Frenchman amongst you, I shall kill him on the spot". I felt that we were betraying something. I am pretty sure that, at the same time, better informed and much more afflicted, Putin was already feeling betrayed. There was a small, insignificant Russian success, I believed that they entered the capital first and without clearance from NATO. But this was an act of bravado of no significance, and Russia got humiliated and played. I also remember that China was similarly humiliated with its embassy being shelled (officially, by accident).
With the 2nd Irak war, in 2003, I got through a variety of mixed feelings. First, the 9/11 trauma had made a deep and lasting impression, and the sentiment again of adhesion to civilization, against barbarism and terrorism, overwhelmed me. Also feeling an easy prey to this powerful paradox that bigger is the lie, easier it is to swallow it full-mouth, I could not get to distrust Colin Powell's now-famous show of weapons of mass destruction in a vial, and was distrusting, instead, those who, prominently for me, my father, but also by then our head-of-state—Chirac, a notorious opportunist and scammer—opposed Americans. To my great shame, I (morally) supported the wrong side, that is, that of the coalition which this time seized full control of the country, deposed Saddam Hussein, humiliated him and had him hung summarily. It didn't take long for me to regret my stance as I could feel that humanity was siding with the man who with dignity faced his execution, in the hands of brutes who appear to share throughout history a predisposition for botching executions and turning them into a martyrdom.
The next episode, I have actually it in the records of this blog already, namely, the Death of Osama bin Laden on 2 May (2011), which is the first time that I made public my personal opinion of a matter which was revulsing me all the more that it was uniformly accepted as a good thing all around me, namely, the assassination of Bin Laden. I was nauseated to see the show of the 2009 Peace Nobel prize ordering and then celebrating the summary execution of someone who was then defiled and humiliated. I felt very disinclined to make an intellectual coming-out by expressing views that I knew were neither popular nor welcomed by people who would lend a hear to me for topics remote from politics. The tension and hostility were already quite palpable in private discussions, so making an opinion public was clearly only calling for enmity. I feared that speaking could be both misinterpreted as a support of a point (here, of Bin Laden), as opposed to decrying the equal or greater wrongdoing of the opposite point (state murder), in addition to also bring noise to my normal and professional communication, which is on scientific topics. At the same time, the hypocrisy was unbearable so I reluctantly wrote it down. Now I can turn to these texts rather than to my own memories, which I find valuable.
I'm writing "these texts" in the plural, because even though I committed myself to remain discreet on such topics, I had not long to wait before something even more shocking brought me again to ward off the spell of guilt and shame by claiming openly, beyond disapproval, my utter disgust at a situation, namely, at the Lybia aggression, again by NATO. This I could still keep to myself, relatives and close acquaintances. But the savage, bestial and criminal assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, on 20 October (2011), and the concert of self-congratulations, the indecent display of euphoria at his torment, I had to atone for my belonging to such a society by at least confessing our collective crime. In fact, the trauma was so profound that a couple of days later, I had to sit with myself in some sort of therapeutical exploration of how we came to accept such a situation where, in the name of rightfulness, we commit outright atrocities. I came to the conclusion that this was related to Orwell's concept of NewSpeak—which he formulated well in his masterpiece short Essay on Politics and Language—that got adapted to our modern "CNN era" of live coverage of everything.
There at the conclusion of this, I had written was is bringing me, in the very same process, to write again today. I quote my self from the past, 11 years ago:
This is, in my approximative English of the time, exactly what is going on now, with over a decade of the Kremlin resisting the temptation of making a similar, so convenient, but mistaken move. There is indeed no moral grounds to reproach Putin to do what the Occident, NATO at its head, has been doing repeatedly under the most contrived and ridiculous pretences. It does not make it right, nor does it justify, but it explains and distributes the guilt. NATO and the Occident, branding themselves the "international community", are equally if not more guilty, by establishing, not one, but numerous precedents.
The same actually happens with manifestations. We have seen, in France, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and still other places, brutal repression, with people losing their eyes, their hands, being shot at with real bullets, being trampled on by horses, being surrounded by the police and brutally beaten. This is unacceptable. Now compare with Moscow's handling of manifestation. They are what you would expect of a democratic society. Imagine if Putin would do a tenth of what our so-called democracy inflict on their people, if he would have thugs split open the head of someone from behind, push to the ground elderlies, cripple for the rest of their life peaceful demonstrators randomly picked from the crowd, tear gas children and unrelated passer-byes, seize personal properties and bank account of those remotely involved... Imagine the outcry would he do only some of these things? That we can do in all impunity because we are, a democracy à la Thiers. Being a "dictator", the mere fact of having a group of people on a Moscow's square means that he is oppressing people. That is the power of the double standard, of spin-doctoring reality. That is what Putin neglects, his war marketing, his political narrative. He is too candid, too honest, too literal, too genuine and too ingenuous. There might be a point, though, in a world that becomes increasingly tumultuous, and tormented, where he might be tempted to also expediently silence homeland dissent, and send armed police brutal repression. Are we not, the occidental world, showing him the way, inviting to taste what we copiously and avidly devour, with this appetite of a beast which the blood excites?
So regardless of the underlying motivations, which we haven't touched upon, the situation is clearly not so simple as "Putin is a dangerous dictator" but goes back to "the Occident gives the tone and rhythm of the music and the rest of the orchestra has to follow it".
As for the underlying reasons, ultimately, the most important and relevant ones... At this stage, there is insufficient background, and not enough time, to discuss further the extent of, or even qualify, the acts of Putin. My immediate feeling is that if they are not a crime (at worst), they are at least a mistake (at best). Even if he would be justified, his strategy seems too frontal, too brutal and too expeditious. This might turn out to be, on the other hand, the optimum choice in this prisoner's dilemma. One should consider, in particular, the fact that the Russo-Ukrainian war did not start yesterday, but is ongoing since 2014. Right now, each hour seems unbearable to the World as Russian troops march towards the Ukrainian capital. But before that, few of us have realized that each second of a rotten and paralyzed situation were equally unbearable to Russia and its sympathizing separatist fractions. Nobody could have cared less and this could have remained like this forever, like the Palestinian situation, for which the best thing that could happen might be for some authority to decide at some point of a decisive, blitz-action to settle it once and for all, instead of letting it decay and rotten in the open and general indifference. In Ukraine, the repeated insistence of Russia to negotiate with the occidental powers, to be treated as an equal, or at least as a partner, have been scorned. The demands to provide guarantees on NATO membership of Ukraine and/or its capacity in terms of hostile military equipment have been ignored or betrayed. The Minsk agreements, in particular, have been repeatedly violated. In this sense, isn't there at least some grounds, some rationales, for Putin to break the status quo? What would have happened if Russia had developed military capacities in Venezuela? We actually know as History remembers vividly the same scenario involving Cuba. So, again, the situation is not as clear cut as "war is bad, stop the war, value the people".
In this discussion, however, one would have to go further and critically geopolitical aspects that go back, at least to the cold war, as well to WWII. At a more superficial level, I have only commented on the soundness and opportunity of such a forceful move. I still believe, already one day following the events, that this was a mistake. Putin is fighting, not only Ukrainian military, but also American experts of the Hollywood story-telling scene, who will diabolize and vilify him in proportions rarely seen before. Any escalation can be and will be blamed on the party that started the hostilities. The Occident now has a dreamed distraction on which to blame, or at least dilute, all of its coming problems. The greatest flow of Putin seems, again, to be candour and to have opted to resolve problems in a too straightforward and pragmatic way, even if with patience and care, as opposed to cunningly deceiving, playing dirty, in people's back, openly supporting dissent, arming Maduro, fueling and amplifying people's hatred for their respective regimes. Instead, he opted to end a war that has been ongoing since 2014 by squashing skirmishes for good. For this, he will be drowned in infamy.
The night is passing for me, life is passing for others in the meantime. A little observer of no significance, left with his memories, his intuitions, his doubts and useless indignation.
Je m'étonnais surtout
D'être de ce troupeau
Qui m'apprenait à pleurer
Que je connaissais trop
J'avais L'œil du berger
Mais le cœur de l'agneau
[...]
Et la guerre arriva
Et nous voilà ce soir.