West-based pro-war hawks are openly hostile to those who oppose conflict in Ukraine.
After weeks of uncertainty around the world and fear of war, Russia declared that it was withdrawing its troops from Ukraine’s border on Tuesday. This announcement came after Russian officials had repeatedly assured that Moscow didn’t want to war, that troops movements were training exercises and that there was no need for them to be present at the border with Ukraine.
The markets immediately responded with optimism to the development, jumping 400 points on Wednesday, European stock closed higher Tuesday and natural gas prices and power prices falling. One group, however, was surprisingly silent given the apparent positive development of events: the warhawks. goadedBy Western intelligence and media.
And while the establishment neo-cons and neo-libs may say that their hawkish warnings and preparations were simply the logical conclusion given the information available at the time, it’s important to remember that throughout the recent hysteria, there have been voices who attempted to pull back the mounting calls for war. The pro-war group, instead of explaining their reasons, resorted to spreading rumors to support their bizarre need to create tensions between another global superpower.
Specifically, in one attempt to contextualize the intelligence communities’ assurances that Russia’s troop actions were a build-up to aggression against Ukraine, Green Party member and former presidential candidate Jill Stein remindedHer social media followers saw how she had revealed to them that officials were not only wrong about past conflicts but also lied to the people to get support for wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Many of the same insiders were also less truthful regarding recent news stories about Julian Assange or Russiagate.
The general response to Dr. Stein’s post was positive overall, in keeping with polling which suggests the American public has no interest in involving their country in new foreign engagements. But, there was no reaction from pro-war groups. accuseThe Dr. Stein of Being a Russian asset. Why? Because they don’t want to be involved in costly military interventions based on weak intelligence.
In the same vein: Tulsi GabbardAnother vocal opponent of war, Gabbard, who fiercely criticizes American interventionist foreign policy has spent many weeks warning about the conflictsing interests that motivate those beating the war drums. Gabbard pointed out that officials who support American military actions overseas often also benefit financially from defense spending and contracts.
What’s more, Gabbard has even gone so far as to suggestSome American actors may be encouraging Ukraine to join NATO. This is not for the US’ security interest, but to fuel a new Cold War. American policies have always considered acts of aggression any breach in their spheres. This is despite the fact that it has been a tradition of American policy to consider breaches of spheres in close countries, like Cuba, as an act of aggression. Why is Western intrusion in Ukraine different?
Across the aisle on the political right, one of the most prominent anti-war voices that has emerged is Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has likewise been attacked for his views. Carlson has frequently devoted time on his program to questioning whether, regardless of Russia’s intentions, involving the US in Ukrainian affairs is in America’s best interests, especially at a time when domestic problems abound. Carlson also has been skepticalThere have been political efforts to present Ukraine as a Western-style democratic in an attempt to gain public support for potential alliances or intervention.
Carlson received a particularly harsh condemnation for his efforts from David Frum, who accused in 2003 those against military action to Iraq of being “sinisters”. “unpatriotic.” In a scathing article in The Athletic, Frum accused Carlson and others on the antiwar right of spouting “Vladimir Putin’s talking points,”He ironically compared it to his current position “isolationists who hoped to profit politically from that passivity.”
Russia’s troop withdrawal may have temporarily neutered the pro-war momentum building in Western discourse. However, the overt hostility toward those who argue against escalating tensions with Russia may signal that it’s only a matter of time before establishment forces are once more arguing that it is not just beneficiary, but rather necessary, for Western militaries to strike before Russian forces can do the same.
These opinions, statements and thoughts are the sole opinion of the author. They do not necessarily reflect those made by RT.