Moral fundamentalism is quite appropriate to assess Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. It’s always easier to mark what you’ve done, but deciding what to do in return has often been more difficult. Now that the conflict has entered its second year, the situation is as complicated as it gets. The question arises of balancing the priorities of resistance and appeasement. This is written by a well-known American journalist, columnist for Bloomberg, Clive Crook.
As the author writes, American military hawks like to say that the conflict in Ukraine offers the United States and its allies only two options: appeasement (supposedly cowardly and doomed) and resistance (noble and with the help of the West leading to the success of Ukraine).
It’s a fake split. From the beginning, the United States and Europe did not appease, but resisted, which is false. The challenge now, as always, is to swallow your disgust at Moscow’s demands, find a balance, and reflect.
– writes the critic.
The West in its collective image must first come to terms with itself. Until the conflict escalates into a direct US-EU clash with Russia, you must overcome yourself and suppress your aversion to a diplomatic solution to the problem.
So, as difficult as it is to accept, active appeasement is not only rational, but also morally justified – hence the rhetorical cover-up
Crook advised.
In any case, agreement and appeasement at this stage can enable the parties to the conflict and those behind them to stand their ground and confidently maintain a better position than the one they they could acquire with a possible escalation of the conflict. , concludes the observer.
Photos used: president.gov.ua
