by Sebastian Köhler
[This
article posted on 6/8/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Berichte-ueber-den-Jahrestag-der-Landung-in-der-Normandie-Alternative-Alliierte-9753520.html.]
Meritorious, but not exclusive: US troops in Normandy, 1944. Image: Everett Collection, Shutterstock.com
What
is history, what do the media make of it? This question was raised this
week in view of the commemoration of the Second World War. A Telepolis
media fragment.
80
years of D-Day – the anniversary of the Normandy landings is a topic in
almost all media. Not surprisingly, reporting in this country is
characterized by the geostrategic conflict situations. Why attributes
are sometimes important in news – and to what extent the 6th of June
1944 also has a not entirely unimportant “prehistory”.
On
the occasion of the 80th anniversary of “D-Day” on June 6, 2024, many
German media outlets reported that “the Allies” had landed on the west
coast of France in 1944. The
public media ARD-Tagesschau, ZDF-heute and rbb-inforadio are exemplary
in this regard, the latter documented here pars pro toto by screenshot
because it cannot be accessed via a link:
Quote from the homepage of rbb24-Inforadio:
In France, the celebrations to commemorate the 80th anniversary of
the deployment of Allied soldiers on D-Day have begun. On June 6, 1944,
almost 160,000 soldiers landed in Normandy, marking the beginning of the
liberation of Europe from Nazi rule (...).
These
descriptions can hardly be considered a simple mistake or typo, as they
unfortunately happen again and again in the media – including here and
in my own writing. No, because the language is largely consistent, one
could say: in unison. This has been the case for years in many print and
online media, with an increasing tendency – and now, in 2024, it is
almost the same everywhere. Which doesn't make it any better.
The Allies had already fought decisive battles before that
The
fact is and remains that the “Allies” of the anti-Hitler coalition
definitely did not land in Europe on that day. Because if it were not so
serious in terms of history and world politics, one could say, as in
the story of the hare and the hedgehog: they were already there. Always.
Namely in the east of Europe.
The
Soviet Union, even if this fact is hardly present in this country at
the moment, was one of the three main allied powers, along with the USA
and Great Britain. To be enlightened about this, even the online
encyclopedia Wikipedia is enough:
The military alliance of the three main Allied powers, the United
Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States, with other states, is
referred to as the Anti-Hitler coalition (or Grand Alliance, Russian:
Антигитлеровская коалиция) and opposed the Axis powers in the Second
World War: the German Reich under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, the
fascist Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Greater Japan. The
United Nations emerged from the Anti-Hitler Coalition in 1945 (...) The
Anti-Hitler Coalition was officially founded under the name United
Nations after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the declaration of
war by Germany and Italy on the United States in December 1941. 26
states sent delegates to the Arcadia Conference, which took place in
Washington, D.C. from December 1941 to January 1942 (...) In addition to
the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, Australia,
Belgium, China ,
Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, India, Yugoslavia, Canada, Cuba, Luxembourg, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, South
Africa and Czechoslovakia. The
countries occupied by Germany took part through representatives of
their governments in exile. On January 1, 1942, they all adopted a
declaration directed against the Tripartite Pact, the United Nations
Declaration.
The
fact that the historically justified term “allies” now explicitly
excludes the Soviet Union in the prevailing usage of the term can hardly
be described as anything other than a retouching of history.
Power politics
A
special case of “history is what the victors write”. Apparently the
USSR is no longer one of them. It seems to be a power-political and
media practice, in view of the current geostrategic confrontation and
Russian aggression against Ukraine since February 2022, to deny the
Soviet successor state Russia this, possibly positively connoted “ally”
status more than ever.
Incidentally,
this linguistic usage also stands out every year in February, when the
bombing of Dresden by “allied bombers” in 1945 is commemorated: however,
it was in fact British and US bombers, and not Soviet ones, that flew
these attacks and dropped the bombs.
View of the bombing of Dresden
Sometimes,
in news reports that are supposed to be informative, attributive
adjectives are not only possible, but even necessary in order to achieve
the greatest possible objectivity.
In
the case of both the bombing of Dresden and the Normandy landings, it
would be appropriate to refer to the three main allies simply as the
“western allies”. This would not be so difficult if the aim were to be
as objective as possible.
Suddenly, only D-Day counts
The
special twist to this year's D-Day seems to be the following: D-Day
would have “ushered in” the liberation of Europe from Nazi rule, as
mentioned above. What? Not
a word about the first major defeat of the German Wehrmacht by the Red
Army outside Moscow in the winter of 1941/1942. No mention of the Soviet
troops' breaking of the fascist blockade of Leningrad in January 1943.
And
apparently no knowledge of the devastating defeats of the armies of
Hitler's Germany at Stalingrad and in the Kursk arc in 1943. All this
would not have long since “ushered in the liberation of Europe from Nazi
rule” in its own way?
Such
a current historical amnesia or even extremely one-sided presentation
of historical facts in the journalistic media can hardly be interpreted
in any other way than as an adaptation, even over-adaptation, to the
prevailing power and geopolitical climate. Because what should not be
can't be?
The lust of US presidents for nuclear Armageddon
by Jeffrey D. Sachs
[This
article posted on 6/3/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Die-Lust-der-US-Praesidenten-am-nuklearen-Armageddon-9745409.html.]
Doomsday Clock
The
last five US presidents have moved closer to the nuclear abyss. Jeffrey
Sachs calls for a commitment to peace. The path he outlines. A guest
article.
The
primary responsibility of every US president is to ensure the security
of the nation. In the nuclear age, this means above all preventing
nuclear Armageddon. However, Joe Biden's reckless and incompetent
foreign policy is taking us closer to annihilation.
In
this way, Biden joins a long line of presidents who have toyed with
nuclear Armageddon and are no different from each other in this regard.
This also applies to his immediate predecessor and current rival Donald
Trump.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear war on everyone's lips
The media has been full of talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear war in recent days and weeks.
The
leaders of NATO countries want to defeat Russia and even see it
dismembered, and they tell us not to worry about Russia's 6,000 nuclear
weapons.
Jeffrey Sachs is an American economist, political analyst and professor at Columbia University.
Ukraine is using NATO-supplied missiles to knock out parts of Russia's early-warning system for nuclear attacks.
Meanwhile, Russia is conducting nuclear weapons exercises near its border with Ukraine.
US
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg have given Ukraine the green light to use NATO weapons to
attack Russian territory as an increasingly desperate and extremist
Ukrainian regime sees fit.
There is a risk of nuclear war
These
leaders have put us all at great risk by failing to heed the most
fundamental lesson of the nuclear standoff between the United States and
the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
President
John F. Kennedy, one of the few American presidents in the nuclear age
to have fought for the survival of us all during the negotiations, told
us and his successors after the end of the Cuban missile crisis:
Above all, in defending their own vital interests, the nuclear
powers must avoid those confrontations which force an opponent to choose
between a humiliating retreat or nuclear war. To embark on such a
course in the nuclear age would be to demonstrate the bankruptcy of our
policy – or a collective death wish for the world.
But that is exactly what Biden is doing today, by pursuing a bankrupt and reckless policy.
Nuclear war possible even by accident
A
nuclear war can easily result from an escalation of a conventional war,
or from a hot-headed leader with access to nuclear weapons launching a
surprise first strike, or even by accident.
We
know today that the latter almost happened, even after Kennedy and his
Soviet counterpart Nikita Khrushchev had negotiated a compromise to end
the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
At
that time, a disabled Soviet submarine almost fired a nuclear torpedo
at American warships, which was only prevented by the skin of its teeth
(see also the translator's note at the end of this article).
Doomsday Clock – ever closer to the abyss
When
Clinton took office in 1993, the Doomsday Clock showed 17 minutes to
midnight, but that time had been reduced to nine minutes by the time his
presidency ended.
Bush
reduced this time span to just five minutes, Obama to three minutes and
Trump to just 100 seconds. Now, under Biden, the Doomsday Clock is at
90 seconds to midnight.
Most presidents and most Americans are not aware of how close we are to the abyss.
The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which was founded in 1947 to save the
world from nuclear annihilation, invented the Doomsday Clock to make the
public aware of the extent of the threat we are actually facing.
National security experts adjust the clock depending on how close we are
to “midnight” at the end of each year, which is a euphemism for global
annihilation.
The scientists have recently set the clock to just 90 seconds before midnight, closer than ever before in the atomic age.
Doomsday Clock – a yardstick for evaluating US presidents
The clock is a useful yardstick for measuring which presidents have “understood” the threat and which have not.
The
sad fact is that most presidents have recklessly jeopardized our
survival in the name of “national honor,” to demonstrate their personal
resolve to counter political attacks from warmongers, or out of sheer
incompetence.
According
to this simple and straightforward assessment, only five presidents
since 1945 have done the right thing by extending the time until
midnight, while nine of them have brought us closer to Armageddon,
including the last five presidents. Truman was president when the
Doomsday Clock was set at seven minutes to midnight in 1947. Truman fueled the nuclear arms race and when he left office the clock was only three minutes to midnight.
Eisenhower
continued the nuclear arms race, but also entered into the first
negotiations with the Soviet Union on nuclear disarmament. When he left
office, the clock was reset to seven minutes to midnight.
Kennedy saved us in the Cuban Missile Crisis
Kennedy
saved the world by keeping a cool head during the Cuban Missile Crisis,
rather than following the advice of hot-headed advisors who called for
war (for a detailed account, see Martin Sherwin's masterful book
Gambling with Armageddon, 2020).
In 1963, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy successfully negotiated the Partial Test Ban Treaty with Khrushchev.
At
the time of Kennedy's assassination, which may have been the result of a
CIA coup against his government due to his peace initiative, JFK had
reset the Doomsday Clock to twelve minutes to midnight. That was a great
historical achievement.
Unfortunately, however, this situation was not to last.
Lyndon Johnson soon escalated the situation in Vietnam, so the clock was reset to just seven minutes to midnight.
Richard
Nixon then defused tensions with the Soviet Union and China somewhat
and concluded the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (Salt I), which reset
the time to midnight again.
But
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter failed to negotiate Salt II, and Carter
made the fateful and unwise decision to give the CIA the green light to
destabilize Afghanistan in 1979.
And
when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the clock was down to just four
minutes to midnight. But Reagan and his successor George Bush Sr., who
worked successfully with Gorbachev, also deserve the credit for ending
the Cold War, which in turn led to the end of the Soviet Union itself in
December 1991.
Gorbachev worked for an end to the Cold War
The
next twelve years marked the end of the Cold War. A large part of the
credit for this goes to Mikhail Gorbachev, who wanted to reform the
Soviet Union politically and economically and end the confrontation with
the West.
When
Bush Sr. left office in 1993, the Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes to
midnight, the most favorable time since the beginning of the atomic age
in 1945.
At
that time, Russia explicitly and unequivocally said “yes” to peaceful
and cooperative relations with the USA. Unfortunately, however, the US
security establishment did not accept this answer.
While
the Russians wanted to end the Cold War, the US wanted to “win” it.
They declared themselves the only superpower and the rules of a new and
US-led “rule-based world order” were to be determined unilaterally by
them.
The
US therefore began a series of wars after 1992 and expanded its vast
network of military bases around the world at its own discretion,
constantly and ostentatiously crossing the red lines of other nations
and even aiming to force nuclear opponents into humiliating retreats.
Every US president since 1992 has promoted nuclear annihilation
Therefore,
it is regrettably true that since 1992, every US president has brought
the world closer to nuclear annihilation than his predecessor had
already done.
The
Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes to midnight when Clinton took office,
but only nine minutes to midnight when he left. Bush reduced this time
span to just five minutes, Obama to three minutes, and Trump to just 100
seconds to midnight. Now Biden has reduced it to just 90 seconds.
Biden has led the US through three brilliant confrontations, each of which could end in Armageddon.
More articles by Jeffrey D. Sachs:
USA votes against full UN membership for Palestine
Continued colonialism: Why London and Washington are preventing Palestine from becoming a UN member
Telepolis
The end of diplomacy
The less diplomacy, the greater the risk of nuclear war
Telepolis
By
insisting on an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine, regardless of
Russia's bright “red line”, Biden has repeatedly demanded Russia's
humiliating withdrawal.
By
unconditionally siding with Israel in what is probably a genocidal war
in Gaza, he has fueled a new arms race in the Middle East and an
increasingly dangerous escalation of the Middle East conflict.
By mocking China over Taiwan, which the US supposedly recognizes as part of China, he is stoking a possible war with China.
Trump has fueled nuclear threats on several fronts in a similar manner, most blatantly in the confrontation with China and Iran.
In
Washington, all the key politicians seem to be of one mind these days:
more money for wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, more weapons for
Taiwan. We are getting closer and closer to Armageddon.
But
polls show that the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of US
foreign policy, and their opinion counts for very little. That is why we
must now seize every opportunity to work hard for peace. The survival
of our children and grandchildren depends on it.
Jeffrey
Sachs (1954, Detroit, Michigan) is an American economist and professor.
He received his doctorate in economics from Harvard University in 1980.
Sachs' career has been marked by various academic positions and
advisory roles for major international organizations such as the United
Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. As
director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia
University and as a professor, he is deeply committed to sustainable
development.
Sachs
is particularly well known for his significant role in the development
of economic policies in Eastern Europe during the transition from
communism to capitalism. He is considered an advocate of global poverty
reduction.
Sachs'
achievements in economics have earned him numerous awards and honors.
His work and his commitment to a more just world economy have extended
his influence far beyond the boundaries of academia. In “The Price of
Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity” (2011), he
addresses issues of US society and economy.
Telepolis
has published a series of articles by Sachs on the background, course
and impact of the Ukraine war and Israel's war in Gaza. Like John J.
Mearsheimer, Sachs is one of the outstanding US scholars who take a
clear, realistic and critical position on the disastrous US foreign
policy.
The
present article by Jeffrey D. Sachs, entitled “Presidents Who Gamble
With Nuclear Armageddon”, was published on May 29, 2024 on the US
website Common Dreams. This text follows on from an article by Sachs,
which was recently published in Telepolis under the title “The Less
Diplomacy, the More Nuclear War”.
The
present article was translated into German by Klaus-Dieter Kolenda with
the author's permission and provided with some subheadings. In
addition, he refers to a reference by Sachs in his above text about a
possible “nuclear war by mistake”, which was only narrowly avoided after
the Cuban missile crisis, to an article in Telepolis that also deals
with this topic, entitled “War in Ukraine: Use of nuclear weapons
possible again”.
Translator:
Klaus-Dieter Kolenda, Prof. Dr. med., specialist in internal medicine –
gastroenterology, specialist in physical and rehabilitative
medicine/social medicine, was head physician of a rehabilitation clinic
for diseases of the cardiovascular system, the respiratory tract, the
metabolism and the musculoskeletal system from 1985 to 2006. He
has been working as a medical expert for the social courts in
Schleswig-Holstein since 1978. He also works with the Kiel group of the
IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and
for Social Responsibility). E-mail: klaus-dieter.kolenda@gmx.de
Nuclear war by mistake: “Deepfakes and cyber attacks could have an impact”
by Andreas von Westphalen
[This
article posted on 6/3/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Atomkrieg-aus-Versehen-Deepfakes-und-Cyberangriffe-koennten-Auswirkungen-haben-9744782.html.]
Cybersoldiers
AI
increases the risk of military escalation. The complexity of the
nuclear threat could become uncontrollable. The expert sees only one
solution. (Part 2 and conclusion)
In
the first part of this interview, Prof. Karl Hans Bläsius, an expert in
artificial intelligence, discusses the role and dangers of AI in modern
warfare. He emphasizes that autonomous weapons systems, although
efficient, raise ethical and security concerns because they cause
destruction and death.
The
risk of unpredictable interactions, similar to the “flash crashes” in
financial markets, can lead to uncontrollable escalations. Bläsius
emphasizes that Israel is already using AI for target designation and
that this can be problematic if human review is lacking.
The
complexity and time pressure of military decisions require the use of
AI, but the uncertainty and incompleteness of the data can lead to
erroneous decisions. In the Ukraine war, AI is used to assess the
situation, which increases the risk of escalation, especially through
nuclear threats and possible false alarms in early warning systems.
Bläsius warns of an “accidental nuclear war” that could be triggered by misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
Increased risk due to the war in Ukraine
▶
You are also a co-founder of the interest group “Atomkrieg aus
Versehen” (Nuclear War by Mistake). Why do you see the need to warn
against the danger of a “nuclear war by mistake”?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: As early as the 1980s, I was already concerned about the
risk of an “accidental nuclear war”, for example as a result of a
computer error. From around 2016, I had the impression that the risk of a
nuclear war was increasing again and in 2019 I set up the website
atomkrieg-aus-versehen.de to draw attention to these risks, as in my
view they were far too little known.
My
greatest fear was that climate change in the coming decades would make
many regions uninhabitable, forcing people to move elsewhere, which
would lead to crises and conflicts, making any error in an early warning
system increasingly dangerous and eventually leading to a “nuclear war
by mistake”.
In my view, the risk of an “accidental nuclear war” has now also increased significantly due to the war in Ukraine.
September 26, 1983
▶ Have there been any situations in the past where a nuclear war was narrowly avoided?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Yes, there have been a number of such situations in which
it was only by a stroke of luck that an “accidental nuclear war” was
avoided. In particular, there were some very dangerous situations during
the Cuban Missile Crisis.
One
incident that became particularly well known was on September 26, 1983:
a satellite in the Russian early warning system reported five attacking
intercontinental missiles. Since the satellite was found to be
functioning correctly, the Russian officer on duty, Stanislaw Petrow,
should have passed on the warning in accordance with regulations. However,
he considered an attack by the USA with only five missiles to be
unlikely, did not want to be responsible for a third world war and
decided that it was a false alarm, despite the data.
▶
You are convinced that the complexity of nuclear threat situations will
increase to an almost uncontrollable degree. Can you please explain
this in more detail?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: In recent years, a new arms race has begun in various
military dimensions. Most of these developments are still in their
infancy and their consequences are almost impossible to calculate. This
applies to new delivery systems for nuclear weapons, such as hypersonic
missiles, the planned weaponization of space, the expansion of cyber
warfare capabilities and the increasing use of artificial intelligence
systems, including autonomous weapons systems.
All
of these aspects also play a role in early warning systems for
detecting attacks with nuclear missiles and will significantly increase
the complexity of these systems. Potential cyber attacks, in which
components or data of an early warning system could be manipulated, are
also incalculable.
Disinformation and deep fakes
Disinformation
and deepfakes can also play a role here. Deepfake techniques can be
used to create audio and video files in which a person speaks any text,
with the pronunciation and image matching that person so well that the
forgery is barely recognizable.
It
can be particularly dangerous if hackers manage to connect to a
conference to evaluate a nuclear alert, establish a connection with a
“fake” president and make them say whatever they want. The fact that
operating teams know that everything (for example, audio and video
recordings) may be fake can also lead to great uncertainty at
conferences to evaluate alerts in crisis situations.
Probability is not certainty
▶
In November 2023, the Pentagon published its strategy for the
introduction of AI technologies. It states that “the latest advances in
data, analytics and AI technologies are enabling leaders to make better
decisions faster, from the boardroom to the battlefield”. Why don't you
share this optimism?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Of course, such processes can be improved and accelerated
with the help of AI. However, it is also true here that such decisions
have to be made in an uncertain context and that AI results are not
certain, but only have a certain probability. Our normal everyday
knowledge is usually vague, uncertain and incomplete, and this also
applies to such military contexts. The problem of uncertainty cannot be
solved by technical means.
A
Telepolis article published on February 11, 2024 warns against the use
of AI systems. The background to this was that a study based on
experiments with various generative AI systems had come to a frightening
conclusion. The
scientists write: “We observe that the models tend to develop a dynamic
of an arms race, which leads to major conflicts and, in rare cases,
even to the use of nuclear weapons.”
AI models tend to war
▶ How can this behavior of AI be explained?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: It is not easy to explain this, and further research is
certainly needed. Such escalating behavior could have various causes.
A
fundamental problem in AI is often the huge search spaces, i.e. a large
number of alternatives that underlie a decision in individual
situations. This also applies to generative AI systems, where there are
many possible alternatives for a next action or response in each
situation, and it is important to make the best or even optimal
selection from these many alternatives. The
individual alternatives are usually weighted, and a selection can be
made on this basis according to certain strategies and heuristics.
Does artificial intelligence increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war?
June 2, 2024 Andreas von Westphalen
[This
article posted on 6/2/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Beguenstigt-Kuenstliche-Intelligenz-die-Gefahr-eines-Atomkriegs-aus-Versehen-9744434.html.]
Drone
AI
weapon systems can drive escalation spirals. They lack the ability to
make rational decisions. What this can lead to. (Part 1)
Interview
with Prof. Karl Hans Bläsius, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at
the University of Applied Sciences in Trier and operator of the websites
atomkrieg-aus-versehen.de and ki-folgen.de, about AI in modern warfare
and the dangers for humanity.
▶
Prof. Bläsius, artificial intelligence plays a decisive role in the
design of autonomous weapons systems today. How do you assess this
development?
Karl Hans Bläsius is a retired professor of computer science and artificial intelligence.
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Autonomy in technical systems is not a bad thing in
principle. I also hope to see autonomous cars, so that I can drive even
when I am very old. Autonomous robots can also be very useful in
dangerous environments. Of course, the military also wants more autonomy
in weapons systems, as this can achieve more in complex environments
and tight timeframes.
However,
we are talking about weapons that are designed to destroy and kill, so
different standards should apply here. On the one hand, we should not be
aiming for the automation of killing anyway, and on the other hand,
more autonomy is possible for all weapons systems, and this could lead
to particularly dangerous developments, including in connection with
nuclear weapons, for example in the case of autonomous submarines,
aircraft or cruise missiles.
▶
In high-frequency trading on the financial markets, unforeseen
interaction processes between different algorithms repeatedly occur,
leading to massive price crashes within seconds (so-called “flash
crashes”).
Please also read
Image of deformed hands, of an AI
Insanity with AI: eat a stone a day and put glue on your pizza
Telepolis
Facade with the inscription “Bilderberg Hotel”
70 years of the Bilderberg conference: the meeting cannot shake off the stigma of conspiracy
Telepolis
A desperate man behind a desk. All you can see is a raised arm.
Online news overload is overwhelming many Germans, Bitkom survey shows
Telepolis
Unit 8200: How the Israeli spy chief was exposed
Telepolis
Electric mobility and AI: The big lie of green technology?
Telepolis
Can
fully autonomous weapons systems also lead to such unpredictable
interactions between the automatic systems that result in an unforeseen
chain reaction of autonomously guided attacks and counterattacks?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Yes, this risk is also described in a report from October
2020 entitled “Autonomous Weapons Systems” by the Office of Technology
Assessment at the German Bundestag. The term “flash war” is also used
here. In
very short periods of time, competing systems could launch attacks and
counterattacks that are no longer controllable or manageable by humans,
thus leading to an escalation spiral.
Such
a chain reaction would also be conceivable with autonomous internet
agents. Such a “flash war” could therefore also occur on the internet.
Some generative AI systems comparable to ChatGPT are already in use on
the internet, and more will follow. Many companies and countries are
currently working on generative AI systems. In addition to humans, bots
could also ask questions and tasks to these systems. It is to be
expected that there will soon be interactions between these systems
themselves.
This
could give rise to new dangers, especially if these systems have the
ability to launch cyber attacks. A system like ChatGPT could be
instructed by humans, bots or another generative AI system to carry out
cyber attacks. Other generative AI systems with which it already
interacts could detect this and launch counterattacks.
Without
human intervention, a chain reaction could quickly develop between
these systems, with increasingly powerful cyberattacks, a “flash war” on
the internet. These systems would then be de facto autonomous cyber
weapons. Even though current systems are not yet technically capable of
this, it is to be expected that extensions will be activated at regular
intervals, which may have such capabilities at some point in the next
few years or very soon.
▶
Is artificial intelligence already being used today, for example, to
determine military targets in wars? And if so, how do you assess this?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Yes, Israel uses such AI-based systems to identify Hamas
fighters and their suspected locations. This involves the use of
extensive surveillance data and the identification of large numbers of
targets for attack. Telepolis has also reported on this several times
(here, here and here).
It
is extremely questionable whether such automatically determined targets
are still checked by humans for correctness. Because it is obviously a
matter of a larger number. If that is not the case, then in the end a
machine decides who is killed, including civilians who fall victim to
these attacks. This is unacceptable.
▶
Military actions often take place under extreme time pressure and in a
highly complex situation. Therefore, the increasing use of artificial
intelligence is of course a natural way to deal with the vast amounts of
data and to make a decision. Do you think this is problematic?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Due to the complexity and short time frames, it will
become increasingly necessary to use AI techniques. However, such
decisions are usually made in an uncertain context. The data available
for a decision is usually vague, uncertain and incomplete.
With
vague values such as the size or brightness of objects, there is a
continuous spectrum between “not applicable” and “applicable”.
Corresponding characteristics therefore only apply to a certain extent
and this is not always certain, but they may only apply with a certain
probability.
In
addition, important information for a decision may be missing. AI also
has techniques for solving problems and making decisions based on vague,
uncertain and incomplete data.
However,
such decisions are only valid with a certain probability and can be
wrong. This is a limit that applies in principle, no matter how good AI
systems may become. Human decision-makers should always be aware of this
problem.
▶
You have already mentioned it: the frequently heard demand that the
final decision on life and death must be made by a human being can turn
out to be a sham control. After all, whether a human being can evaluate
the information in the short time available and reject the AI's decision
is questionable, isn't it?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Yes, that is very questionable. In many cases, it is
difficult for humans to verify automated decisions, because they are
often based on hundreds of weighted features, from which an overall
result is calculated using a special evaluation formula.
Such
a solution, i.e. the justification for a decision, is usually not easy
to understand. A review could take several hours or even days, which is
usually not enough time. This will apply especially in a military
context.
If
the decision result itself cannot be easily and quickly evaluated by
humans, the only option left to humans is to believe what the machine
delivers. Over time, successful and correct AI decisions will also lead
to an increase in trust in such systems, making it increasingly
difficult for humans to oppose the machine's decisions.
In
particular, people could be held accountable to a particular extent if
they decide differently from what the machine suggests and this turns
out to be wrong. The requirement that the final decision on life and
death must be made by a human being, i.e. the principle of “man in the
loop” must apply, could turn out to be a sham control. After all, it is
questionable whether a human being can evaluate the available
information in the time available and thus have a suitable basis for his
decision.
▶
Specifically, perhaps with regard to the war in Ukraine: to what extent
do you see your fears regarding the use of AI there being confirmed?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: AI is being used in the Ukraine war, for example to
provide a detailed military situation report on the basis of which
suitable targets can be determined. A software program from the American
company Palantir is being used for this. Telepolis has also reported on
this. Drones are also particularly important in this war, although I am
not aware of the extent to which AI and autonomy play a role here.
▶ Do you see a risk of an escalation spiral in the Ukraine war?
Karl
Hans Bläsius: Yes, I see a great risk here. There have been nuclear
threats since the beginning of the war. The effects of a nuclear war can
be so severe that even in times of crisis and war, there is a great
reluctance to use nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless,
various scenarios are conceivable in which it could come to use. The
use of nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out if a nuclear power finds
itself in a situation that it finds unacceptable, although it is almost
impossible to predict from the outside under what circumstances this
would apply.
This
will apply to Russia at least if the Russian Federation finds itself in
an existential emergency, although it is also unclear under what
conditions such a situation would arise. However, the risk of nuclear
war can also depend on chance, for example if a nuclear attack is
reported due to a fault in an early warning system for nuclear threats,
although none exists, i.e. it is a false alarm.
In
these cases too, the data basis for recognizing such attacks is vague,
uncertain and incomplete. Therefore, automatic systems cannot make a
reliable decision in such situations either. The context, i.e. the
global political situation, must be taken into account for the
assessment.
Other events that could be associated with such an alert could also lead to such a report being assessed as genuine.
Furthermore,
in times of war, such an attack could be more likely to be attributed
to an enemy. The nation that is supposedly under attack must consider
launching its own nuclear missiles before the enemy's missiles strike,
making it more difficult to respond.
This
could then lead to a “nuclear war by mistake”. Threats to use nuclear
weapons are just as irresponsible as attacks on components of the
nuclear forces of a nuclear power.
Such
events can easily lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and
thus to an accidental nuclear war. This also applies to the attacks on
Russian early warning systems that have become known in recent days,
which have significantly increased the risk of escalation.
Part 2: Nuclear war by mistake: “Deepfakes and cyber attacks could have an impact”
Karl
Hans Bläsius is a retired university lecturer. He received his
doctorate from the University of Kaiserslautern in 1986 for a thesis on
artificial intelligence. From 1990 to 2017, he represented the field of
knowledge-based systems in the computer science department at the
University of Applied Sciences in Trier. His research focused on
document analysis, with the results of these projects also being applied
in practice through the establishment of companies. Now
retired, he is teaching a course on “Computer Science and Society” at
the University of Applied Sciences in Trier, which also deals with the
risks of an accidental nuclear war in connection with computer science
and AI. As a result of this work, the website
www.atomkrieg-aus-versehen.de was set up in 2019.
The search for an alternative form of social organization beyond the market and the state
by Meinhard Creydt
[This
article posted on 6/1/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Suche-nach-einer-alternativen-Vergesellschaftung-jenseits-von-Markt-und-Staat-9743447.html?seite=all.]
A gear wheel with economic growth surrounded by the people
In
capitalism, the economy and capital often grow against the population.
How can society reorganize itself to enable more control?
Economic
activity (on markets) and the growth of wealth (as capital) are
becoming independent of the population. How can society organize itself
in such a way that it enables a higher degree of control and design of
social processes?
From the criticism of problem marketing...
In
a market economy, suppliers can often only sell their products to the
extent that certain problems exist and are not being addressed or
overcome. Assuming that the causes of the problems and the problems
themselves remain untouched, those affected seek compensation or
overcompensation. The following examples illustrate this thesis.
A
central reason for the high sales of the automotive industry is that
people are dependent on cars due to the poor state of public transport.
In addition, many popular products serve or presuppose ideological ideas
or an ideological subjectivity. This applies, for example, to the so-called car culture (see Creydt 2017, 98–101) and the home of one's own (see Bourdieu 1999).
A
large proportion of food is produced for consumers who have little
time, skills or desire to prepare a meal carefully. They prefer fast
food and products that, with their high sugar and salt content, directly
appeal to something like the psychological reward center.
Highly processed foods such as hamburgers, French fries or chicken
nuggets in fast food restaurants provide the body with refined, i.e.
nutrient-poor, carbohydrates, added fats and other additives that are
not available for purchase and therefore make the food “something
special”.
Häfliger (2024)
Such foods can make people addicted. Even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung now says:
Poor nutrition – and obesity – is not the fault of the individual, but the result of the omnipresence of unhealthy foods.
Kuroczik (2023)
Nevertheless, it is still widespread to individualize health problems: “You are to blame for your own health problems!”
... on the attention paid to the social structure
Awareness
of these problems can lead to an awareness of the constitutive
connections between living conditions, lifestyle, offers and needs. This
awareness is dedicated to the question “What contributes to people
preferring certain content and not others?”
An
alternative form of socialization to the capitalist market economy and
state socialism requires a different kind of awareness of the
interactions between economic sectors and social areas. For example, it
is becoming clear how the way in which agriculture is practiced, the low
prices for its products and the demand (power) of retail corporations
are interrelated.
This
awareness of concrete qualitative interconnections runs counter to the
profit-oriented motives, constraints and dynamics of the economy. It is
able to relate work, needs, motives and lifestyles to one another in a
different way.
Such
an awareness is also critical of the widespread notion of spontaneous
autonomy: “What is useful to me and what I like, I feel quite
authentically from within myself”.
Concrete
ideas emerge as to what good agriculture or mobility with priority for
public transport might look like. The insight has spread that such
prevention of illness is needed, overcoming the burdens and
contradictions in work and the economy that promote illness, as well as
unhealthy nutrition. Society cannot then leave it at medicine as a
repair shop.
New connections between previously separate groups
Secondly,
alternative socialization can build on new social connections between
workers, consumers and those indirectly affected by work and
consumption.
Such
connections can be found, for example, in the alliance between
environmentally conscious farmers, nutrition-conscious consumers and
environmentalists. In the fight against the closure of hospitals and
their privatization, workers and the local population can come together.
At
Volkswagen, for example, there are already so-called vehicle clinics;
they are not there to repair vehicles, but to discuss them. Market
researchers present the model designs to selected families and note down
their wishes and suggestions for improvement” (Schieritz 2023).
Such
institutions must be emancipated from their narrow focus on the sales
promotion of individual companies and opened up to joint consultation
between consumers and producers on meaningful products. “Idea
generators, experts, users and producers” can come together in “public
development workshops for product development and innovation”
(Birkhölzer, in research project 1994, 31).
In
the capitalist market economy, the various workforces are also separate
from and opposed to each other. The cooperation between different
companies (development cooperation, long-term coordination between
suppliers and producers, etc.) and private ownership of the means of
production are in conflict. Company secrets ensure that work collectives
and research and development projects are sealed off from each other.
Those
affected experience this as detrimental to their work. Through mutual
job shadowing and consultation, it would be possible – after overcoming
private ownership of the means of production – for workers from
different companies to learn from each other, to discuss best practices
and to learn from each other.
At
present, it is only on the markets that it becomes clear whether the
product exceeds or undercuts the average social standards. “If
production takes place at different production sites,” “the production
methods and conditions within a sector” must be “equalized”. In a market
economy, this equalization takes place through “antagonistic
competition” (Leichter 1923, 32).
Instead
of taking this detour, “it would be much easier and more expedient to
[…] stop being secretive and […] sit down together in the various
workshops to exchange experiences of production and improve the
production process in solidarity with each other” (ibid., 31).
The
market is not without competition, either as a “knowledge processing
machine” (Herzog 2023) or as a form of coordination. However, according
to the current state of discussion, a post-capitalist society faces the
problem of getting along poorly with markets as well as without them
(see Creydt 2020).
So
far, there are no satisfactory answers to the question of the
relationship between social organization and markets in a
post-capitalist society. However, it is possible to indicate which
elements of a market economy can be eliminated for good reasons (see
Creydt 2022).
The
need for an alternative form of socialization arises to the extent that
those affected become aware of one thing: they are negatively affected
by the divisions and oppositions that result from private property,
competition and the imperatives of the profit economy.
If
the population no longer wants to be the dependent variable of
self-referential and independent economic processes, it must “develop
competencies in the strategic places that are now occupied by capital or
management” and “by market effects […] in the course of things: in the
places that decide on the bringing together of the elements of the
social process” (Haug 1993, 106f.).
The
capitalist market economy involves separating what belongs together and
at the same time creating problematic links. Alternative socialization
reassembles the various moments of social production and reproduction.
It
is already important today to leave well-trodden paths in our thinking,
to break down entrenched links and to analyze how previously
misdirected potential can be used differently.
The preferences of socially meaningful work
A
third aspect of alternative socialization arises from the change in
work motivation. In the capitalist market economy, companies act
according to the maxim: “The main thing is that the product can be sold.
The assessment of the motives of consumers for buying and the question
of what the products or services ‘do’ to the customers are of secondary
importance. It is not the content of the products and services that is
decisive, but that their production increases capital.”
In
post-capitalist society, producers and service providers work in such a
way that their products and services promote the human potential of
their customers and they see themselves as their trustees and
representatives.
They
treat the customers' affairs as if they were their own, without
ignoring the differences between the experiences and competencies of
producers and customers, experts and laypeople.
Relating quality and quantity to each other
According
to the defenders of the market economy, prices are a shorthand that
makes it possible to communicate all the necessary information quickly
and efficiently.
In
the meantime, the insight is spreading that prices are under-complex
information concentrates. Those who want to evaluate the activities of
companies and organizations will have to include more qualitative
indicators. At present, for example, the MIPS (material intensity per
service unit), the DGB index “good work” or the Human Development Index
exist.
An
information infrastructure for product line analyses, technology impact
assessments and environmental impact assessments is already emerging,
which runs parallel to pricing. These make the effects, conditions and
feedback associated with the work and work products tangible.
These
can be used as a basis for “concepts of a ‘non-financial’ or
social-ecological accounting system” or “multidimensional success
concepts” (Pfriem 2011, 188).
They
form a fourth moment of alternative socialization. Common good balances
are an example of this. It is not only the efficiency of the company or
organization that needs to be balanced, but also its contribution to a
good life.
What
is needed is a “material-multidimensional concept of value” as opposed
to the maxim “value is what costs or brings money” (Freimann 1984, 22). In
the “multi-dimensional value calculation”, which also takes into
account the qualities that are difficult to quantify, “the degree of
social welfare can only be determined by weighing up [...] quantitative
and qualitative factors (standard of living and quality of life), and
must therefore be decided by political dialogue.
This
is a disadvantage in terms of model-theoretical practicability, but it
corresponds to reality to a much greater extent than the reduction of
economic action to monetized and commercial processes” (Hauchler 1985,
56). On the problem of relating quantity and quality to each other in
society, see Creydt 2024.
Deliberative democracy
The
full reality of work and consumption can only be realized in public
deliberation and in the change of perspective between workers, customers
and those indirectly affected by work and consumption.
This
is what constitutes the educational dimension of public deliberation,
debate and consultation (= deliberation) in the context of a
deliberative democracy (cf. Barber 1994). It forms the fifth moment of
alternative socialization.
In
it, the population enters into a practical self-assessment or
reflection and thus becomes the “mediator” between needs and production.
The inhabitants then anticipate the problematic consequences,
conditions and implications, for example, of the generalization of car
traffic (“car-friendly city”).
This
enables the situation to be overcome in which the population remains
the dependent variable of a short-sighted mutual increase in production
and demand.
In the joint public consideration and deliberation of the common, conflicts arise
between workers and consumers (e.g. on the question of how many
consumer goods are offered and how many resources are used to increase
the quality of work as a lifetime),
between producers and consumers on the one hand, and those affected
by their indirect consequences on the other, in order to avert a
coalition of the labor and consumption sectors at the expense of care
activities (relationships with children, the sick and the elderly) or
ecology
between experts and laypeople (e.g. with the question of how much
specialization is necessary, and what losses of everyday judgment and
competence are associated with it, and how this can be counteracted).
A
claimed political supremacy over the economy remains precarious as long
as the latter is considered to be both self-referential and
self-dynamic in the main, and also external to the world of life (or as
its only external condition). Those who are merely in government can, at
best, distribute the results of the economy in a different way.
It
is something else to fundamentally change the way in which human
capabilities are formed within the context of work, consumption and
social relations. Only then does the field of post-capitalist wealth
open up. Lothar Kühne (1985, 224) rightly states that this “new wealth”
is something different “than the mere absence of the old poverty.”
Awareness of the social whole as a whole
What
the product or service “does” to the “customer” in terms of developing
his or her human potential cannot be adequately deduced from the
bilateral relationship. It is necessary to visualize the multilateral
relationships.
For
joint deliberation, consideration and decision-making, scenarios are
needed that show how the various sectors or social areas provide
services for each other, how they depend on each other and on
overarching conditions, how they benefit from them or contribute to
their reproduction, and what negative or positive feedback loops exist.
One
of these scenarios visualizes how the elimination of the central
wastefulness that characterizes the capitalist market economy makes it
possible to finance the expansion or reorganization of previously
neglected areas.
The
sixth moment of alternative socialization consists of such scenarios.
They visualize how the various concrete qualities are mutually dependent
and how they are interdependent, how they promote or limit each other.
It
is “a new system of reference, by which people can coordinate
themselves with each other in a new way, which they cannot do without a
third reference” (Priddat 2008, 69).
This
new center between people in the post-capitalist society consists of a
meaningful network of different types of work, objects and areas. Only
this substantial change, not the mere change of government, will remove
the basis for the economy's independence from the population.
Being in the world
The
society of the good life involves a different way of being in society
for the individual. The individual does not just want to enjoy the
advantages of the division of labor and participate in the wealth that
is made possible solely by the direct and indirect interaction of many
actors (only then does a higher standard of living arise than in largely
self-sufficient farm households or local communities with their
commons).
In
the society of good living, the individual wants and is able to be a
social being for another reason. He or she becomes aware that fruitful
interaction with others – beyond the circle of close circles – as well
as public deliberation, consideration and shaping of the community
contributes significantly to the development of his or her human
potential.
This
too is part of the necessary transformation of cognitive and normative
self-evident truths within the framework of an alternative
socialization.
Public spirit
Social
production and reproduction are then examined to see how people
“produce” human capabilities and subjectivity through many social
mediations. They do this
by producing certain goods with certain contents of invitation and possibility,
by developing a certain subjectivity in the work itself,
by entering into certain social relationships through the way in
which they do business, which also have an impact on their so-called
private lives.
The
society of the good life overcomes a view of the self and the world in
which individuals understand society as a marathon of negotiations
between their interests or between their special concerns as members of
particular groups.
In
contrast, the society of good living is about the relationship between
people in their everyday practice, which pursues the following question:
How do they directly and indirectly do something for each other by
contributing to the formation of human capabilities? How can they
participate in this “general work that is created by the actions of all
and everyone as their unity” (Hegel 3, 325)?
The
new wealth of alternative socialization is found in the way we work and
live together, in the way we challenge and inspire each other, in the
interplay and synergy of the various “life activities” (Marx) – work,
care activities, the development of senses in objects outside of work,
consumption, social relationships and the shaping of society by the
population.
In
view of the interconnectedness and structure of these moments, private
interests and business efficiency appear as selective and particular
perspectives. Thinking outside of this interconnectedness and structure
means thinking poorly in the abstract. Such thinking is like theory to
practice:
To assert abstractions in reality is to destroy reality.
Hegel 20, 331
Literature
Barber, Benjamin 1994: Strong Democracy – Participation in the Political. Hamburg
Ten reasons why Putin might prefer a compromise peace
by Geoffrey Roberts
[This
article posted on 5/29/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Zehn-Gruende-warum-Putin-einen-Kompromissfrieden-Vorzug-geben-koennte-9738166.html.]
10x Putin with a dove of peace
One
of the leading narratives in the West is that Moscow is aggressive and
expansionist. But there are arguments against this too. A guest article.
On
May 23, 2024, Roberts published an article on the British website Brave
New Europe – an English-language website for critical thinking and
alternatives to neoliberalism – in which he discusses ten reasons why
Russian President Putin might prefer the risks of a compromise peace to
the costs of a long war with Ukraine and the West.1
First: Russian losses
BBC
Mediazona research shows that Russia has so far lost 60,000 to 70,000
soldiers in the Ukraine war – four times as many as in ten years of war
in Afghanistan and almost as many as the US in Vietnam.
Russia's
strategies and tactics for maintaining its armed forces are geared
towards minimizing the number of casualties, but the complete conquest
of the Donbass could cost thousands more Russian lives.
Taking
Kharkov and Odessa would be even more costly. Military overrunning and
subsequent occupation of all of western Ukraine would require the
mobilization of an additional hundred thousand soldiers.
The
number of Ukrainian casualties is far higher than that of Russia – at
least 200,000 to 250,000 and perhaps even 500,000 military deaths are to
be considered. A hasty collapse of the Ukrainian military is now
possible, but Kiev could probably continue to fight for a longer period
of time with Western support.
Secondly: the nuclear threat
A
nuclear war also threatens the existence of Russia and the rest of the
world. The escalation of the war into a full-scale NATO-Russia conflict
remains a real possibility.
The
danger of hostilities in which nuclear weapons could be used, or of a
catastrophic incident involving Ukrainian (or Russian) nuclear power
plants, has never been as great as it is today.
Thirdly: A change of regime in Kiev
The
current Ukrainian regime will remain in power as long as the war
continues. Only peace negotiations can lead to its replacement. Its
replacement by an even more radical ultranationalist government is
possible, but would call into question Western support – without which
Ukraine cannot survive as a state.
There
is a good chance that a successor regime will swallow the bitter pill
of a peace settlement, which would suit Russia. It would be a result
that the Ukrainian public would hate but accept as the least bad
alternative.
Fourth: Russian public opinion
poll
data shows that the majority of Russian citizens will support the war
for as long as it takes, but the Russians also want ceasefire and peace
negotiations as soon as possible.
The
westernized parts of the Russian elite are keeping quiet, but they too
will go in the same direction if a possible peace solution appears on
the horizon.
A
small but vocal and not insignificant minority of Russians will want to
see the war expanded until a complete victory over Ukraine and the West
is achieved. However, Putin's power and popularity can limit the
influence of these so-called “turbo-patriots”, although they could
hinder peace negotiations.
Fifth: Pressure from the Global South
Russia's
friends, allies, partners and supporters in the Global South reject a
long war and want a ceasefire as soon as possible. If Ukraine and the
West were to start pushing for peace negotiations, China, India, Brazil,
South Africa and other independent actors will be an impressive lobby,
urging Putin to pick up the ball and start negotiations.
Sixth: Reconstruction of the annexed territories
Retaining Crimea and the four other annexed provinces is Russia's minimum goal in the current war.
While
this goal seems to be as good as guaranteed, it is to be feared that it
will be a Pyrrhic victory, because Moscow will not be able to rebuild
and resettle the devastated country in southern and eastern Ukraine in
the near future. The longer the war lasts, the more gigantic this task
will become.
Putin
went to war to eliminate the growing Ukrainian military Nato bridgehead
on Russia's borders, but also to protect the pro-Russian Ukrainians.
Ending the war could be the best way to secure their lives and
existence.
Seventh: Slavic solidarity
Putin's
claim in July 2021 that Russians and Ukrainians are essentially one
people has caused outrage in some Western circles, although it was a
statement that about 40 percent of Ukrainian citizens agreed with at the
time.
Russia
has waged the war under the banner of multinationalism, not mono-ethnic
nationalism. It has generally treated its Ukrainian opponents with
respect.
Russia,
on the other hand, has labeled Ukrainian neo-Nazis and
ultra-nationalists, corrupt officials, exploitative oligarchs and those
who have aligned themselves with Western interests as its enemies.
From
this perspective, Russia should be seeking to heal the wounds of war
that it has inflicted on a people that it still regards as a brother
nation. At best, the healing will take a very long time, and a long war
could make the rift between Russia and Russia Ukraine unbridgeable for
generations.
Eight: Restoring trade relations between Russia and the West
Russia
has withstood the Western sanctions war very well. Russia's war economy
is booming and has surpassed Western arms manufacturers. New
relationships and markets have been forged with the Global South. Russia
now has more economic and technological sovereignty than before the
war.
China,
Russia and the non-Western world are challenging the US's global
financial hegemony. But the Western sanctions hurt – especially ordinary
Russians – and the pain is likely to increase in the medium to long
term.
Detached
from and in conflict with the West, Russia has shown that it can
survive and even thrive, but greater opportunities for the prosperity of
the Russian population would arise if the Western sanctions were ended
and the former trade relations were resumed.
Ninth: Global cooperation
Russia
and the West need each other to jointly address and overcome a variety
of pressing problems such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
cross-border crime and international terrorism, catastrophic
environmental problems, health threats, global poverty and social
inequality.
Tenth: The emergence of a new world order
Russia
is seeking a new international system based on sovereignty,
multipolarity, multilateralism, mutual security, respect for
international law and the reorientation and revitalization of global and
regional institutions.
Read also from Geoffrey Roberts:
The 10 most common propaganda claims about the Ukraine war – explained briefly
Telepolis
How far will he go? Putin's territorial ambitions in Ukraine
Telepolis
Russia's
vision of the future also includes the recognition of spheres of
influence for the major powers, which should help to ensure that law and
justice can be secured for all states in the same way.
The
successful creation of such a new global and multipolar world order
also depends on Russia, but it requires that it avoid the nightmare of a
long-lasting war in Ukraine, which would make the Orwellian dystopia of
a permanently divided world into warring and mutually antagonistic
power blocs a reality.
Geoffrey
Roberts is a British historian and Emeritus Professor of History at
University College Cork in Ireland, specializing in Soviet foreign
policy and military history. He is a member of the Royal Irish Academy
(RIA), Ireland's leading body of experts in the natural and social
sciences.
Telepolis
has published several of the scientist's articles on the war in
Ukraine. At the beginning of February, for example, he published an
article in which he briefly and convincingly dealt with the ten most
common Western propaganda theories about the war in Ukraine.
This
article is also noteworthy because, in an exclusive report dated May
24, 2024, the international news agency Reuters reported, citing five
unnamed high-ranking Russian sources, that Russian President Vladimir
Putin was ready to call a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine and freeze the
fighting along the current front lines.
Our author Klaus-Dieter Kolenda has translated this article into German with the kind permission of Geoffrey Roberts.
The 10 most common propaganda theories about the Ukraine war – explained briefly
February 4, 2024 Geoffrey Roberts
[This
article posted on 2/4/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Die-10-gaengigsten-Propaganda-Thesen-zum-Ukraine-Krieg-kurz-erklaert-9617603.html?seite=all.]
Questionable analogy, here in Latvia in 2014. Image: Observe The Banana, CC BY-NC 2.0
Geoffrey
Roberts on narratives about the Ukraine war and Russia. Criticism of
historical comparisons. Because they can have devastating consequences.
What
are the main points of the propaganda that keeps the doomed war in
Ukraine going while the world is confronted with Ukraine's defeat?
Geoffrey Roberts has summarized and explained some of the most important
propaganda narratives.
Roberts is an emeritus professor of history at University College Cork and a member of the Royal Irish Academy.
#1: Putin ≠ Hitler: A myth debunked
This frequently used false analogy is outrageous and has no factual basis.
Putin
is not a maniacal, genocidal, warmongering dictator. He is not a racist
or militarist seeking to dominate Europe or the world. He also does not
have a messianic ideology that drives him to remake the world in the
image of Russia.
Putin's
geopolitical ambitions are remarkably conservative: security and
respect for Russia and its civilization, a peaceful and prosperous,
multipolar world of sovereign states, in which there is a balance of
interests, mediated and harmonized by multilateral institutions such as
the United Nations.
Such aspirations only appear radical in the context of the West's crumbling global hegemony.
#2: Stalin equals Putin? A questionable equation
Putin
was shaped in the Soviet system after Stalin's death, but he has not
been a communist since the late 1980s. As he said not long after taking
office as president of the Russian Federation, anyone who does not
regret the destruction of the Soviet Union has no heart, and anyone who
wants it back has no brain.
In the 1990s, he was a pro-Western liberal, but today his ideology is Christian and capitalist, not Marxist or socialist.
He wields enormous power in Russian politics, but does not preside over a totalitarian party dictatorship, as Stalin did.
The
Russian Federation's soft authoritarianism bears no resemblance to the
mass repression of the Stalin era, nor is it comparable to the much less
violent but equally repressive one-party state of Stalin's communist
successors.
Patriotism,
multinationalism, internationalism and love of history are what Putin
actually has in common with Stalin, but not that he is a dictator.
#3: Munich syndrome – historical misinterpretation
This
most popular and damaging of all historical false analogies is based on
the claim that the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement
of September 1938 shows that aggressors cannot be appeased.
The
problem at the time was not appeasement policy itself, but the fact
that Hitler was out for a world war and did not want to be appeased.
Stalin
was the leader the British and French should have appeased, but they
avoided a collective security alliance with the USSR in favor of deals
with Nazi Germany.
Before
invading Ukraine, Putin was desperately seeking an agreement with the
West. That is why he proposed a comprehensive European security
agreement between Russia and the West.
A
few weeks after the war began, he sought a compromise peace that would
have left Russia with a neutral and disarmed Ukraine on its doorstep,
but with only a small gain in additional territory.
Moscow
remains open to such negotiations, even if the price of peace is likely
to be much higher today than it was two years ago.
The sooner Putin is appeased, the sooner the war will end and Ukraine will be spared further unnecessary suffering.
#4: The Prague analogy, a dangerous fallacy
This
false analogy is an extension of the Munich syndrome. It claims that
Hitler's occupation of Prague in March 1939 shows that if you give Putin
an inch of territory, he will take a proverbial meter.
However,
in 1939, Hitler's goal was the conquest of Poland, not Czechoslovakia.
German troops invaded the country, ostensibly to restore order, because
of an internal crisis that divided Slovakia and the Czech lands after
the loss of the German-populated Sudetenland in Munich.
The
battered Ukraine, which is completely dependent on foreign aid, is more
likely to be on the way to becoming a Western protectorate than a
Russian one.
#5: Finland and the Winter War
This is not the worst of the false analogies, but it is more complicated to understand than its proponents might think.
The Finns wisely signed a peace treaty with the USSR in March 1940 to save the independence and sovereignty of their country.
But
they had rejected a similar Soviet offer before the war broke out,
which would have given them gains in the border region of Karelia in
exchange for losses.
It
was not the brave Finnish defense that stopped the Soviet attack, but
Stalin's fear that a British-French military intervention could turn the
country into the battlefield of a larger European war. This perspective
would not have been favorable for the Finns either.
Finland
could have remained a neutral country for the rest of the Second World
War, but it catastrophically chose to ally itself with Nazi Germany in
the so-called “Continuation War”.
The
Finnish leadership redeemed itself by deploying its armed forces
against the Germans in 1944 and then refusing to accept Western
interference in its policy towards the Soviets.
This stance convinced Stalin and led to Finland being allowed to become a semi-independent member of the Soviet bloc.
A
“Finlandization” – that is, internal autonomy in exchange for limited
foreign policy sovereignty – would have been a far better model for an
independent Ukraine than the divisive domestic path that led to its
partition.
#6: Discourse on genocide and the Holocaust
Both
sides have used the word “genocide”, but the atrocities committed
during the Russian-Ukrainian war are in no way comparable to the mass
murders of millions of Jews by the Nazis during World War II.
In
fact, this war has been remarkably free of large-scale, systematic
atrocities against civilians. The vast majority of war casualties have
been soldiers. This is not to deny the immense suffering of millions of
Ukrainian civilians, but as Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan
show, it could have been much worse.
The
battle over the word “genocide” in propaganda obscures two essential
facts about the actual Holocaust: the Holocaust began with the murder of
one million Soviet Jews by the SS in 1941-1942 and ended with the
liberation of the Nazi death camps by the Red Army in 1944-1945.
#7: Containment policy and the Cold War
In
the face of Ukraine's defeat, Western hardliners are increasingly
pushing for a long-term strategy to contain Russia, which involves a
comprehensive militarization of their own societies and perhaps even the
reintroduction of conscription.
But
this re-emergence of the Cold War strategy has little to do with the
views of the inventor of the containment concept, George F. Kennan, who
saw this policy primarily as a political tool.
The
US would not win the Cold War through confrontation and military
competition with the USSR, but through the demonstrated superiority of
its political system.
Kennan
was, as is well known, one of the prominent US politicians who spoke
out loudly against the post-Soviet eastward expansion of NATO. He also
liked to quote the aphorism of President John Quincy Adams, according to
which “America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy”.
#8: The domino theory, an overblown concept?
This
theory was developed by President Eisenhower, partly for the purpose of
getting the British government to join France in its lost colonial war
in Indochina in the 1950s.
But
Winston Churchill did not believe in the theory that the Red victory in
Vietnam would lead to the rest of Southeast Asia falling to the
Communists.
Nor
did his Tory and Labour successors in the office of Prime Minister when
the domino concept was revived in the 1960s to justify massive US
intervention in the Vietnam War.
The current resurrection of this theory is that if Putin wins in Ukraine, the Baltic states will be his next target.
There
is no evidence that Putin has such intentions. Undoubtedly, Russia
could occupy the Baltics if it wanted to, but not without risking a
nuclear war with Nato.
Putin's
invasion of Ukraine was risky and adventurous, but his restrained
conduct of the war has shown that he is anything but reckless – unlike
some of his Western counterparts, who have taken every opportunity to
escalate the conflict.
#9: The Korean stalemate scenario
The
Korean War came to a halt fairly quickly after a few dramatic months of
invasion and counter-invasion in the summer and fall of 1950, but a
ceasefire was not signed until July 1953.
Some
Western hardliners are longing for a repeat of this scenario and hope
that hostilities can resume as soon as Ukraine has regained its strength
and NATO countries have ramped up their arms industry.
Furthermore, Putin will never agree to a ceasefire that does not guarantee Russia's security and secure this situation vis-à-vis Ukraine's supporters.
The longer the war lasts, the more likely it is that a Russian victory will lead to a dictatorial peace imposed by Russia.
#10: Proxy wars – the new global threat?
There are many conflicts that are referred to as proxy wars, in different scales and forms.
The Russian-Ukrainian war has some similarities with the Spanish Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Soviet war in Afghanistan, but its scale, scope, intensity and danger are unprecedented.
The war in Ukraine is simultaneously a civil war between Ukrainian nationalists and pro-Russian Ukrainians, an interstate war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, and a proxy war against Russia led by the West.
Without Western military, economic and political support, Ukraine would have already lost the war.
It is the West's overarching anti-Russian and anti-Putin objectives that have prolonged the war and could turn it into a truly existential conflict for all of us in the future.
Geoffrey Roberts is a British historian and Emeritus Professor of History at University College Cork in Ireland, specializing in Soviet foreign policy and military history. He is a member of the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland's leading body of experts in the natural and social sciences.
At the end of August 2023, he published an initial article on the war in Ukraine on the British website “Brave New Europe”. In this article, Roberts put forward the thesis that the Ukrainian counteroffensive had already failed and that the West could limit the damage if it entered into negotiations with Moscow.
A few days ago, another article by Roberts was published on the same website, entitled “Ignorance is not Bliss: Ten Egregious Historical Mis-Analogies of the Russo-Ukrainian War”.
This article takes a critical look at the content of Western propaganda, which is enabling the continuation of the disastrous and threatening war in Ukraine. Telepolis is publishing the text in German under a new title.
Roberts' arguments are similar to those of US academic Jeffrey Sachs on the causes and background of the war in Ukraine.
According to Sachs, the terrible war in Ukraine, which is threatening the lives of all of us, is above all a proxy war for NATO expansion, which could have been ended long ago if the USA and the West had been willing to take Russia's legitimate security interests seriously and to take them into account.
Translator: Klaus-Dieter Kolenda, Prof. Dr. med., specialist in internal medicine – gastroenterology, specialist in physical and rehabilitative medicine/social medicine, was head physician of a rehabilitation clinic for diseases of the cardiovascular system, respiratory tract, metabolism and musculoskeletal system from 1985 to 2006. He has been working as a medical expert for the social courts in Schleswig-Holstein since 1978. He also works with the Kiel group of the IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and for Social Responsibility). E-mail: klaus-dieter.kolenda@gmx.de
No comments:
Post a Comment