Amidst a Washington and Brussels establishment seemingly fixated on escalating conflict, a counterpoint emerges advocating for a path to peace.
One of the most striking ironies of our time is that those who proclaim their unwavering commitment to democracy and human rights are often the very same actors who disregard international norms at every turn.
In the June issue of The New Republic, a left-leaning American political journal, a stern-faced Donald Trump graced the cover adorned with a Hitler moustache, beneath a caption proclaiming: “American fascism, what it would look like.”
“We chose the cover image, based on a well-known 1932 Hitler campaign poster, for a precise reason: that anyone transported back to 1932 Germany could very, very easily have explained away Herr Hitler’s excesses and been persuaded that his critics were going overboard,” the editors explained in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “After all, [Hitler] spent 1932 campaigning, negotiating, doing interviews – being a mostly normal politician. But he and his people vowed all along that they would use the tools of democracy to destroy it, and it was only after he was given power that Germany saw his movement’s full face.”
However, the journal’s anxieties are misplaced: Trump’s four-year presidency did not witness any discernible signs of fascism taking root on American streets. In fact, the opposite transpired. While Adolf Hitler ignited World War II by invading Poland on September 1, 1939, Trump distinguished himself as the first American commander-in-chief in recent times to avoid a military conflict. Now on the campaign trail for a second term, with the insatiable defense industry eagerly anticipating increased profits, the Republican frontrunner has pledged to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict within 24 hours if re-elected.
When one considers that ‘democracy’ today primarily serves the interests of the military-industrial complex and associated businesses, it becomes easier to understand why Trump is portrayed as an existential threat to the American republic in the corporate-owned media. Peace is the furthest thing from Washington’s agenda, a fact that Russia understands more clearly than any other nation.
Back in 2008, Vladimir Putin delivered his now-famous speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he cautioned his Western counterparts about the dangers of military expansion.
“NATO expansion… represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”
Despite Putin’s explicit warning, NATO proceeded to expand by adding six more members to the alliance, bringing the total to 32. Ukraine, disregarding Moscow’s major red line, is set to become the 33rd member. Anyone claiming this is merely a “defense alliance” should consider America’s reaction if all of Latin America and Mexico joined a military alliance led by Moscow. The outcome would undoubtedly be a bloodbath. Yet, Russia is expected to accept this relentless military incursion right on its border.
This wasn’t the last attempt by Russia to broker a peace deal with Washington. Almost eight years after the 2014 Maidan Revolution, and months before Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine, the Kremlin unveiled its plan for peace on the continent. The plan included proposals for the US and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in regions where their presence could be perceived as a threat to each other’s national security, as well as a ban on sending troops and military hardware into areas where they could strike each other’s territory. The treaty also aimed to prohibit the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Had the Western powers agreed to this plan – which received scant attention in NATO countries – it’s not difficult to envision decades of peace between east and west, a prospect Washington vehemently opposes.
Instead, the US and its European puppets placed Russia in an impossible situation regarding the ongoing militarization and Nazification of Ukraine, compelling it to respond as any other nation concerned about its national security would.
This brings us to the West’s third favorite scapegoat, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has dared to declare his country predominantly Christian and conservative and asserts the right to remain so. Orban, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Council presidency, embarked on a peace-making tour with stops in Moscow, Kiev, Beijing, and Washington (where he ruffled feathers by visiting Trump at Mar-a-Lago instead of Biden in DC). The frustration emanating from Brussels as it witnessed the Hungarian “tyrant” advocate for reduced weapons sales was comical if not downright pitiful.
“Hungary has presented the trips as a ‘peace mission’ to help negotiate a ceasefire for the war in Ukraine. Orban may consider himself as one of the few who can speak to both sides – but in reality he has no mandate to do so,” Armida van Rij, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, a European think tank, remarked. The question remains, however, who will speak out on behalf of peace if not Trump, Putin, and Orban? The answer thus far is nobody.
While there are undoubtedly other statesmen besides Trump, Putin, and Orban on the international stage who can champion peace, time is running out to hear those crucial voices.