[The bottom line is that it's an ongoing war of (brutal) invasion.
It may also very well escalate out of hand and, thereby, pose an
existential threat to the whole of humankind.

Also relevant is the fact that it's the big bully invader which is every
alternate day issuing nuclear threats -- (thinly) veiled and, at times,
not-so-veiled. (Presumably, in order to make the West shrink back from
providing effective assistance to the invaded to fight back.)

Hence, we demand immediate peace.
For that we demand immediate cessation and vacation of the invasion.
The issues of reparation and war crimes may be settled subsequently.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Giorgos Mitralias <giorgos.mitral...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 23, 2023, 01:50

[image: Ukraine]
*What peace for Ukraine?*

by *Yorgos Mitralias*

*Who could have foreseen, on 24 or 25 February 2022, that one year later
Ukrainians would be subjected to an avalanche of peace and ceasefire
proposals from their enemies but also from their friends? The answer is not
difficult: practically no one, because everyone, enemies but also friends,
did not believe that one year later there would still be an independent
country called Ukraine in a position to seriously negotiate anything with
the all-powerful Russian Federation. In short, if there is talk of peace
today, it is due to the heroic and totally "unforeseen" resistance of the
Ukrainian people to the aggression of Great-Russian imperialism, which
defeated the initial plans of both sides.*

But the point is that these peace proposals are problematic. Coming from
Ukraine's enemies, they are tantamount to a clear ultimatum: surrender
immediately so that peace can be made today! Or this variant: surrender to
stop the pointless massacre of Ukrainians... for which the Ukrainians are
solely responsible. Pronounced almost day after day by Kremlin eminences
such as Medvedev, Soloviev or even Putin himself, this ultimatum only
illustrates the cynicism and arrogance of these sinister characters. But
repeated by people who call themselves leftists, it only scandalises any
normal person: How can it be possible that a peace proposal requires that
one of the two parties involved voluntarily accepts its own demise? And
also, how is it possible to accept not being adequately equipped to
confront the "second largest military power" in the world?

But the hypocrisy of these so-called "pacifists" appears in all its macabre
splendour when these leftists feel sorry for the tragic fate of the only
Ukrainians allegedly "needlessly sacrificed" by their leaders, and say
nothing about the slaughter of young Russians serving as cannon fodder for
the master of the Kremlin. If they really wanted peace, they could very
well start by asking Putin to stop sacrificing his compatriots in an
imperialist war and not the Ukrainians who are only defending their most
elementary right: the right to exist…

If these "peace proposals" from the enemies of the Ukrainians are pure
propaganda for fools, the same cannot be said for the peace proposals from
the Western friends (or so-called friends) of the Ukrainians. Preaching -
in one way or another - the need "not to humiliate Putin", most of these
peace proposals are conditioned by the need of the great Western powers not
to cut off ties with Russia, its market and its raw materials. This is why
the military aid offered by Western countries to Ukraine is imperceptibly
reminiscent of that offered by the countries of "*actually existing*
socialism" to Vietnam fighting against American aggression:* enough not to
be defeated but not enough to win...*

Of course, the (unexpected) resistance of the Ukrainian people in arms has
a great influence on Western Ukrainian policy, forcing them to moderate or
even "forget" their pressure on Kiev for a while. However, this pressure
periodically resurfaces, especially when the Ukrainians encounter
difficulties with the Russian army. This is when they take the form of
peace proposals (or plans) advising the Ukrainians to 'moderate' their
ambitions (for example, by giving up Crimea to Russia) so as not to create
too much difficulty for Putin and his power inside Russia.

The aim of such peace proposals is obvious: to soften Putin up in order to
make him more "reasonable"! Unfortunately, this tactic has at least two
major weaknesses, which ultimately make it ineffective. Firstly, it does
not take into account the populations concerned (e.g. the Crimean Tatars)
and does not give a damn about them, with the logical consequence that it
meets with their refusal and resistance. And secondly, that it ignores the
disasters to which such "appeasement policies" led in the 20th century to
tyrants like Hitler or even to Putin himself in the much more recent past!

Inoperative for these reasons, *these "peace plans" are also and above all
immoral because they are paternalistic and imbued with the arrogance of **the
great power.* By wanting to decide the fate of the Ukrainian people instead
of them, they only confirm that with the exception of temporary agreements
and alliances, the Ukrainian people can only count on their own forces.
Exactly as they have done since the beginning of this war. And of course on
the active internationalist solidarity of the oppressed and "those from
below" in Russia and Belarus, in Europe and all over the world…

*• *This article has been published in French in the 16th e-issue of*
Soutien à l'Ukraine résistante* by* Brigades Editoriales de Solidarité:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit 

Reply via email to