MONOKULTUR

Victor Davis Hanson argumenterer i sin fremragende bog The Second World Wars for at Anden Verdenskrig ikke startede med England og Frankrigs krigserklæring mod Tyskland, for at have invaderet Polen. Dette var blot tre europæiske stormagters krig. Det havde intet at gøre med Japans krige i Asien, der var begyndt flere år tidligere. Sovjetunionens krig imod Finland var igen en helt anden grænsestridighed. Først da de krigende parter, med Japans angreb på Pearl Harbor og Hitlers besynderlige krigserklæring i USA få dage senere, koagulerede i to relativt definerede koalitioner, De Allierede overfor Aksemagterne, blev det til en stor krig, der omfattede det meste af Globen.

Starting wars is far easier than ending them. Since the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta and their allies, winning – and finishing – a war was predicated on finding ways to end an enemy’s ability to fight, whether materially or psychologically. The Axis and the Allies had radically different ideas of how the wars of World War II would eventually conclude – with the Allies sharing a far better historical appreciation of the formulas that always put a final end to conflicts.

When World War II broke out in 1939, Germany did not have a serious plan for defeating any of those enemies, present or future,that were positioned well beyond its own borders. Unlike its more distanced adversaries, the Third Reich had neither an adequate blue water navy nor a strategic bombing fleet, anchored by escort fighters and heavy bombers of four engines whose extended ranges and payloads might make vulnerable the homelands of any new enemies on the horizon.

Hitler did not seem to grasp that the four most populous countries or territories in the world, China, India, The Soviet Union and The United States – were either fighting against the Axis or opposed to its agendas.. Never before or since had all these peoples (well over one billion total) fought at once and on the same side.

(Jeg er klar over, at Hanson i det citerede sætter 2. Verdenskrigs begyndelse til Hitlers invasion. men det er ikke bogens pointe, som ligger i titlen “…world warS”). Hanson fortæller, at Hitlers generaler ikke kunne se det muligt at invadere Storbritannien  i Operation Søløve, som Battle of Britain var optakten til. Hvorledes ville man besejre Sovjetunionen, som med Napoleons forsøg, havde demonstreret sin villighed til at brænde sin egen hovedstad ned, frem for at lade den yde ly for fjenden? Og selvfølgelig USA, som man end ikke kunne bombe?

Man havde fra Tysklands vedkommende altså ingen klar opfattelse af, hvorledes en sejr ville se ud og derfor ikke nogen ide om, hvordan den skulle opnås. Hvis man bankede fjenden nok, ville fjenden vel overgive sig og så ville det være det.

Og indland. Her er Danmarks perspektiv for krigen i Ukraine

Regeringen præsenterede i dag endnu en donationspakke til Ukraine og forpligter sig samtidig til at opretholde støtten til landet de næste 10 år. Det er den 15. donationspakke fra Danmark til Ukraine og er 1,7 milliarder kroner værd. Donationen indeholder blandt andet ammunition, som ukrainerne desperat mangler.

Men det er en fejl, at vi bliver ved med at støtte ukrainernes kamp, mener Ruslandskender og forhenværende folketingsmedlem for Dansk Folkeparti, Marie Krarup. Hun kalder Vestens støtte til Ukraine for illegitim. Ifølge hende var en fredelig løsning nemlig en mulighed, da parterne forhandlede i Istanbul kort efter invasionen i 2022:

(…)

Den nye trusselsvurdering fra Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste tegner et billede af et Rusland, som er godt i gang med at opruste militært. Og netop derfor er det vigtigt, at vi bliver ved med at støtte ukrainernes kamp, mener Carsten Rasmussen. Ifølge ham skal støtten forsætte, indtil ukrainerne har en bedre forudsætning for at kunne forhandle på deres præmisser:

– Rusland har aldrig lagt skjul på, at deres præmisser er, at de seks områder, man har annekteret, skal forblive russiske. Vi må som støtter acceptere, at det er uacceptabelt for Ukraine. Vi skal have et andet udgangspunkt for en forhandlingsløsning, siger Carsten Rasmussen.

Så Danmarks perspektiv er altså gået fra at sætte sin lid til at Forårsoffensiven kunne skubbe russerne afgørende tilbage hvis ikke – turde man håbe? – helt ud af Ukraine, så den  borgerkrigshærgede og korrupte Donbass region igen kunne komme på ukrainske hænder, til en foreløbig 10 årig horisont, hvor Ukraine er desperate efter overhovedet at have ammunition nok til overhovedet at kunne forsvare sig selv endsige gennemføre for russerne frustrerende nålestik operationer. “[Putin] is clearly losing the war in Iraq” sagde Joe Robinette Biden, officielt amerikansk præsident. Klart.

Det er ubehageligt at konfrontere virkeligheden når man har taget fejl, så den tidligere forsvarsattaché i Moskva Carsten Rasmussen, beskylder derfor stilfuldt Marie Krarup for at sprede “russisk misinformation”. Hun er desværre ikke den eneste putinistististiske propagandist. Senator Chris Murphy i 2014, efter et besøg i Kiev, sammen med John McCain, blev spurgt om den daværende ukrainske præsident ikke blev valgt helt legitimt tilbage i 2010 for en periode på fem år og hvorfor fremmede staters statsledere kan tillade sig at deltage i demonstrationer imod den siddende regering i Kiev? Og om det ikke er et problem, at dele af oppositionen er galloperende fascister, der mener at EU ledes af bøsser og jøder. Murphy svarer ærligt med munden fuld af rubler

You are right, Yanakowhich was elected, and I’ve mentioned this before, I understand the difficult position here, which is that Yanakowich and we are not in the business of encouraging rebellions and revolutions on the streets against elected leaders because we ultimately thinks that elections, that you mentioned, is the place in which you should settle your differences.

The issue here is that Yanokowich lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests and the United States didn’t go on to that square in any meaningful way until the president tried to break up the peaceful protests. 

That’s why senator McCain and I went. We certainly got a lot of grief from people asking why two US senators were going to the square to support the protest movement against an elected government. We did that because we think that there were human rights and civil rights that were violated there. We’ve always stood up for that concept.

And again, I think that answers your second question as to why you had foreign ministers and foreign leaders who were on that square. It was because we’re standing up for the idea that people should be able to lodge protests against their government. 

You are right that there is an element of the opposition, that has an element og real radical ideas, and there is an element of anti-semitism that was present on that square. I will tell you from having been there if there was 500.000 people there maybe a couple thousand of them represented that viewpoint and so by and large this movement completely rejects those radical and prejudicial ideas and I have confidence that this new government is going to be inclusive and tolerant.

And it will be part of our job, I thing as members of the foreign relations committee to make sure that those kinds of moradic elements don’t have a seat at the middle of the table in this coalition government.

I Ræson siger Krarup videre

Det er en vestlig proxy-krig imod Rusland, hvor vi slipper for at få soldater hjem i kister. Det er, som den republikanske leder, Mitch McConnell, sagde i det amerikanske Senat: ”en billig måde i både dollars og amerikanske liv at svække Ruslands mulighed for at true USA”.

I samme indlæg sagde senatoren også, at der er yderligere to grunde til, at USA støtter Kiev med våben: ”Ukraines effektive forsvar af dets territorium lærer os, hvordan vi kan forbedre forsvaret af de af vores partnere, der er truet af Kina,” og endelig: ”de fleste af de penge, der er sat af til Ukraines sikkerhed, går faktisk ikke rigtig til Ukraine. De bliver investeret i det amerikanske forsvar… Lad mig sige det helt klart: Vores hjælp til Ukraine betyder flere jobs for amerikanske arbejdere og nyere våben til amerikanske soldater!”

Som Joe Biden kogte logikken ned “America first policy… makes us weaker, not stronger”. Eller den tidligere præsident George Walker Bush, hvis hjerne brændte sammen til et kort anfald af ærlighed “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of the Ukraine”. Den Republikanske senator Lindsey Graham gentog sin formands ord

We haven’t lost a single American soldier, we’ve reduced the Russian military’s combat power by 50%, and not a single one of us died, these are the best dollars spent by America since helping Churchill against the Nazis – Senator Lindsey Graham.

Penge brugt, er penge tjent siger man (hvis man i mig lige i dette øjeblik), som det stod at læse i The Intercept, for Graham kan også være sært ærlig

“If I were a defense contractor, I’d be big time for Lindsey Graham, because I’ve been forward-leaning on rebuilding our military,” (…) “People come to you because of your positions,” Graham added.

The Super PAC supporting the presidential campaign of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised $2.9 million through the end of June, a significant portion of which came from defense contractors that stand to gain from Graham’s advocacy for greater military intervention around the world and increased defense spending.

Well there it is, skrev Mike Benz, som han retweetede Aaron Maté

According to a new account in the NYT: 

On the night of the Maidan coup in Ukraine ten years ago, Feb. 24th 2014, Ukraine’s post-coup spy chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko arrived at his new headquarters and made his first call to “the C.I.A. station chief and the local head of MI6.” 

He asked them “for help in rebuilding the agency from the ground up, and proposed a three-way partnership.”

Why was Ukraine’s new spy chief already on such good terms with the CIA and MI6, literally on the night of a coup that brought his new government to power? 

Victor Davis Hanson påpeger desuden i sin bog, at ⅔ af Verdenskrigens faldne kom efter, krigen reelt var afgjort. Det samme skete med den amerikanske borgerkrig efter Gettysburg og Vicksburg.