Last May, before he was re-elected president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were equally responsible for the war in Ukraine. Whether it comes from Brazil, South Africa or India, the claim that one can be "neutral" in a Russian war of aggression is not tenable.
The same applies on an individual level. If a passer-by saw a man mercilessly beating a child, we would expect him to try to stop him. Neutrality is out of the question. On the contrary, we would despise the moral lowness of the passive behavior of passers-by.
So how should we respond to Roger Waters' recent address to the United Nations Security Council? The activist and one of the founders of the group Pink Floyd claims to speak on behalf of "four billion brothers and sisters" around the world. Waters admits that Russia's war in Ukraine is illegitimate and should be condemned "in the strongest possible terms." But he immediately adds:
"The Russian invasion of Ukraine was provoked, and that's why I strongly condemn the provocateurs... Calling for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine is the only reasonable path today. So that no Ukrainian or Russian life is lost again, not a single one, they are all precious to us. So, the time has come to tell the truth to the powerful."
Is Waters' "truth" really an expression of neutrality? Speaking to the Berliner Zeitung, he says: “Maybe I shouldn't, but now I'm more open to hearing what Putin is actually saying. According to the independent voices I listen to, he rules carefully by making decisions based on consensus in the government of the Russian Federation."
I am an independent voice who follows the Russian media very closely and I am well aware of what Putin and his propagandists "really say". Mainstream TV channels are full of commentators who recommend dropping atomic bombs on countries like Poland, Germany or Britain. Chechen commander Ramzan Kadyrov, one of Putin's closest allies, openly calls for "the fight against Satanism [to continue] throughout Europe and above all on the territory of Poland."
The official Kremlin describes this war as a "special operation" aimed at denazification and de-demonization of Ukraine. Ukraine's provocations include allowing pride parades and allowing LGBTQ+ rights to undermine traditional sexual norms and gender roles. Analysts close to the Kremlin speak of "liberal totalitarianism" and argue that Orwell's 1984 should not be read as a critique of fascism or Stalinism, but of liberalism.
We cannot find anything similar in the Western media, where the main topic is helping Ukraine to survive. As far as I know, no one has demanded that the borders of Russia be changed, nor that part of its territory be taken over. At worst, we will find counterproductive demands to boycott Russian culture, as if Pushkin, Tchaikovsky, and Tolstoy are advocates of the Putin regime. Russian culture deserves the same protection from Kremlin bullies as Ukraine. You should also avoid triumphalism and set your goals in a positive frame. Our primary goal is not the defeat of Russia and its humiliation, but the survival of Ukraine.
Various "neutral" countries claim that this war is a local conflict, which pales in comparison to the horrors of colonialism or more recent events such as the US occupation of Iraq. That's obvious blasphemy. After all, the Russian imperialist war is itself an act of colonialism. Those who would like to be neutral now give up the right to speak about the horrors of colonization anywhere. Waters, for example, supports Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. Why is Ukrainian resistance to Russian colonization less worthy of support?
Sometimes things really are that simple, especially now that Russia is preparing to celebrate the anniversary of its war with a new offensive. It is obscene to blame Ukraine for Russian destruction, or to present the heroic resistance of Ukrainians as a rejection of peace. Those who, like Waters, are calling for an "immediate ceasefire" would like Ukraine's response to even greater Russian aggression to be a renunciation of self-defense. It is not a formula for peace, but for surrender.
It is worth noting, once again, that Russia is counting on arguments of "neutrality". As military historian Michael Clarke explains, "The Kremlin plans to continue fighting until the West has had enough and puts pressure on Kiev to cede as much territory as it has won by then." Russia is digging in for a protracted war that will involve the quiet mobilization of around 600.000 soldiers every year for the "indefinite future".
Waters is almost right: Ukraine is indeed "provoking" Russia because it refuses to submit to its imperial ambitions, despite being much weaker. At this point, the only way for him to stop provoking his aggressive revisionist neighbor would be to lie down and surrender. Is he proposing the same to the Palestinians?
Indulging imperialism brings neither peace nor justice. In order to preserve the possibility of realizing them at least partially, we must reject the supposed neutrality and act accordingly.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: M. Jovanović)
Bonus video:
