After ANZAC Day

Written By: - Date published: 9:15 am, April 29th, 2025 - 29 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, International, Peace, war - Tags:

ANZAC Day 2025 is just so dark in the face of a hot war in the Ukraine, and the real lack of commanding peacemakers left on this earth. 

So I turned recently to Professor Jeffrey Sachs who wrote about what an actual peacemaker could do with forming peace in Ukraine.

Peace that lasts does indeed require deals to be done that are difficult. But, as President John F. Kennedy pointed out while facing the teeth of his own warmaking military, real peace leaders have to massively humanise the other side:

Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.”

Not easy to imagine President Trump saying this to his military. But then, Khruschev makes Putin look like a baby. A puppy. Kennedy knew that to defy war you had to humanise everyone including your apparent enemy.

Kennedy warned against pitting a nuclear adversary into a corner that could lead the adversary to desperate actions.

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or a collective death-wish for the world.”

Honestly we didn’t see that kind of attitude from President Biden and we sure don’t see it from President Trump. Neither of them started the invasion but neither of them are peacemakers. Yes, Kennedy was assassinated only 5 months later. It was not revealed until decades later that he only got Khruschev to pull back from missiles in Cuba by promising in return to pull U.S. missiles out of Turkey: Kennedy had to save face with his public and his military. It took a deal to make peace, but it also takes a politician who is prepared to actually sacrifice something to suppress war.

Maybe we need to spend more on MFAT and less on the military, and not the other way around.

Maybe we need to think about what others want from us that would enable the trading that leads to deals that stick. I don’t think anyone has really tried that in our own Pacific Forum. We could sure do it in the Kyoto Accord, and in CPTPP. We know how to do this.

When Kennedy came into office in January 1961, he stated clearly his position on negotiations: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems”

That’s the brave and necessary framing towards peace not war.

29 comments on “After ANZAC Day ”

  2. Res Publica 2
    29 April 2025 at 1:05 pm

    From the article by Jeffrey Sachs you quoted:

    Biden has refused to even acknowledge, much less to address, Russia’s deep security concerns..

    Yet more Russian apologetics, trying to square a circle and obscure the reality: the biggest impediment to peace in Ukraine isn’t the US, or NATO, or even the Ukrainians — it’s Putin.

    A lasting peace in Ukraine is simple and entirely within Russia's power: renounce their use of force, abandon up their spurious claims on their neighbours, and withdraw to their internationally recognised borders.

    Ukraine is a sovereign state, fully entitled to decide its own affairs and alliances without Russian oversight, or the dubious assistance of "thinkers" like Professor Sachs and his ilk.

    As for JFK, he is largely saved from a harsher historical judgment by the accident of dying young, glorified, and popular. Had he lived longer, his chequered personal life, political vacillation, and frequent lack of substantive achievement would have been harder to ignore.

    Reply
  3. mikesh 3
    29 April 2025 at 1:14 pm

    Biden seems to have wanted to get Ukraine into the EU and into NATO, and to sever the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. He should have known that this would be a "step too far" as far as Russia was concerned; perhaps he did, was prepared to see war break out between Ukraine and Russia, and was prepared to back the former all the way, whatever the costs to the two sides. I don't think peace waould have been something he would have wanted to contemplate if he didn't achieve the severance he desired.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 3.1
      29 April 2025 at 3:00 pm

      Could it be plausible that the Ukrainians weren’t idiots, and saw an alliance with the West as their best shot at preserving their independence after 2014? I mean, having some of your territory invaded and annexed by your neighbour might just be a clue they’re a bad egg.

      It must be exhausting to have your very struggle to survive as a nation constantly reduced to some tawdry anti-American point-scoring exercise: especially by well-meaning, gullible fellow travellers from your putative allies.

      Reply
      • mikesh 3.1.1
        29 April 2025 at 5:29 pm

        Could it be plausible that the Ukrainians weren’t idiots,

        Implausible, if they thought that entering into an alliance with their neighbour's worst enemy was a safe thing to do, particularly if their neighbour's enemy is a declining power.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 3.1.1.1
          29 April 2025 at 6:11 pm

          Declining or no, if NATO, or even just it's European component entered the war with any degree of seriousness, the Russian military would find itself comprehensively trashed in short order.

          Only one side is relying on reactivating 1970s vintage tanks and purchasing 70 year old shells from North Korea.

          The only part of Putin's grand strategy that's worked is his threat of a nuclear holocaust being just plausible enough to keep the rest of Russia's former vassals from smashing his beloved army to pulp.

          Reply
          • aj 3.1.1.1.1
            29 April 2025 at 6:33 pm

            Only one side is relying on reactivating 1970s vintage tanks and purchasing 70 year old shells from North Korea.

            And shovels, and chips from household appliances . .

            https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russian-soldiers-19th-century-shovels-ukraine/

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-sanctions-russia-military-gear-b2077887.html

            Reply
            • mikesh 3.1.1.1.1.1
              29 April 2025 at 10:03 pm

              Them Russkies must be combat geniuses if they can hold out against sophisticated yank weapons, armed only with "shovels and household chips".

              Reply
              • Res Publica …
                30 April 2025 at 9:12 am

                It’s less about “combat genius” and more about attrition, geography, propaganda, and sheer scale.

                Russia has industrial depth, a much larger pool of manpower to draw from, and the advantage of not being hamstrung by pesky considerations like coherent strategy, tactical finesse, or avoiding war crimes.

                Just keep throwing waves of criminals, mercenaries, and porn-addicted North Koreans at the front until something gives.

                Reply
              • aj …
                30 April 2025 at 9:19 am

                Heh the scale of propaganda is cosmic, literally. Chomsky was spot on in Manufacturing Consent.

                Reply
          • mikesh 3.1.1.1.2
            29 April 2025 at 9:07 pm

            if NATO, or even just it's European component entered the war with any degree of seriousness,

            The first word in that quote is the word that needs emphasizing. I doubt whether the European people wish to enter the war in Ukraine, no matter how much sabre rattling their leaders engage in.

            I don't think Putin has a "grand strategy". He's just doing whatever he can to defend his country against a meglomaniac country intent on bringing about a unipolar world with themselves as hegemon. Putin says "nyet".

            Reply
            • Res Publica 3.1.1.1.2.1
              30 April 2025 at 9:16 am

              So, which is it: Putin the cornered patriot just reacting to events, or Putin the master strategist defending a multipolar world?

              You say he has no grand strategy, then immediately describe one. That’s not analysis, it’s incoherence.

              And let’s be honest: if resisting a unipolar world was his ultimate goal, invading your neighbor, annexing territory, and murdering civilians is a strange way to show it.

              Reply
              • mikesh …
                30 April 2025 at 1:11 pm

                You say he has no grand strategy, then immediately describe one. That’s not analysis, it’s incoherence.

                I didn't claim that he had a strategy, you made that claim; and you claimed that the nuclear threat was part of it. Preventing a unipolar world is an objective not a strategy.

                And let’s be honest: if resisting a unipolar world was his ultimate goal, invading your neighbor, annexing territory, and murdering civilians is a strange way to show it.

                Just pragmatic, I guess. Blasting away at the enemy's infrastructure and hoping that this will weaken his resistance. And endevouring to prevent NATO from getting too close to Russia's border.

                Diplomacy would be a "funny way to go about it" given the anti-russian bias that exists in the west.

                Reply
          • francesca 3.1.1.1.3
            30 April 2025 at 10:14 am

            So why doesn't NATO go all in?

            NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days straight without Article 5 being invoked, so there's a precedent there.

            Would it be because Russia has nukes? If so whats the point of NATO?

            Reply
            • Res Publica 3.1.1.1.3.1
              30 April 2025 at 11:08 am

              NATO was created to protect Europe from a conventional Russian invasion. The strategy was pretty simple: the European's hold the line while the US flies reinforcements over before counterattacking.

              Russian planning was built around a gigantic armoured spearhead that aimed to get to the Rhine before the Americans did. Then nuking Germany into oblivion if things went south.

              In a modern context, NATO is still aimed at containing Russian agression. But Ukraine has shown the Russian armed forces, while potent, are also no longer the continent threatening juggernaut everyone feared they were.

              Im assuming the only barrier to a higher level of intervention is worry about further escalation. But the longer the war drags on, and the more lines Russia crosses, the less Europe is going to care about that.

              Reply
              • francesca …
                30 April 2025 at 11:38 am

                So the notion that if Russia wins in Ukraine they will go next for other European nations is bullshit, and Russia isn't a threat to Europe after all

                Reply
                • Res Publica …
                  30 April 2025 at 12:15 pm

                  Calling Russia 'not a threat' because they’ve struggled in Ukraine is like calling a drunk driver harmless because they missed you the first time.

                  They may well miscalculate: either by believing they can win outright, or by gambling that the U.S. won’t uphold Article 5 if they strike Poland or the Baltics. That’s not an argument for complacency; it’s a reason to deter them now.

                  And let’s be clear: Ukraine isn’t valuable because it’s a domino—it’s valuable because it’s a sovereign nation fighting for its freedom. That alone is worth defending. But if you let a war of conquest succeed in Europe once, you don’t just invite another one—you normalize it.

                  Reply
                  • mikesh …
                    30 April 2025 at 1:44 pm

                    NATO was created to protect Europe from a conventional Russian invasion. The strategy was pretty simple: the European's hold the line while the US flies reinforcements over before counterattacking.

                    One would have to be pretty dumb to believe the US cares tuppence for Ukraine's "sovereignty". As far as they are concerned Ukraine is a "domino": a useful means of destabilizing Russia. Did they have any regard for Nicaragua's sovereignty, or Cuba's; Venezuela's or Iran's.

                    Russia seems to have her own version of the Munroe doctrine.

                    Reply
                    • Res Publica …
                      30 April 2025 at 1:59 pm

                      “Everyone’s awful, so war crimes are fine now.”

                      Bold take. Stupid, but bold.

              • mikesh …
                30 April 2025 at 1:22 pm

                NATO was created to protect Europe from a conventional Russian invasion. The strategy was pretty simple: the European's hold the line while the US flies reinforcements over before counterattacking.

                Russia has tried on one or two occasions to join NATO, but she has always been rebuffed. The trouble was the US needed to an "enemy" to justify the oodles of wampum it was spending on weapons and othe military hardware, and Russia seemed to be the only logical candidate.

                Russia has no wish to attack Europe. What she wants is to be considered part of Europe. Still, her patience is getting pretty thin I would think.

                Reply
                • Res Publica …
                  30 April 2025 at 1:57 pm

                  Russia has no wish to attack Europe

                  Bold words about a country that's literally invading a European nation.

                  And this idea that NATO cruelly rebuffed a friendly Russia? Please. The price of admission was clear: let Russia rewrite its borders at will, swallow its neighbors under the guise of “security,” and look the other way as it dismantles democracy. NATO said no—for exactly the reasons we’re watching unfold in Ukraine.

                  What Russia did sign up for was the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, explicitly pledging to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in exchange for it giving up nuclear weapons.

                  That promise lasted right up until it was inconvenient.

                  But hey, don’t let international law, broken treaties, or war crimes get in the way of your fanfiction about a misunderstood empire just looking for hugs.

                  Reply
                  • mikesh …
                    30 April 2025 at 2:19 pm

                    Bold words about a country that's literally invading a European nation.

                    Ukraine is not a European nation: apart from its geographic location, its an ethnic mixture of slavs and aryans. Nor is it a member of the EU.

                    And this idea that NATO cruelly rebuffed a friendly Russia? Please. The price of admission was clear: let Russia rewrite its borders at will, swallow its neighbors under the guise of “security,” and look the other way as it dismantles democracy. NATO said no—for exactly the reasons we’re watching unfold in Ukraine.

                    What makes you think Russia, if it were a member of NATO would do all those things.

                    What Russia did sign up for was the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, explicitly pledging to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in exchange for it giving up nuclear weapons.

                    The weapons were Russia's. Ukraine had no control over them. A pledge should be broken if later events necessitate doing so.

                    That promise lasted right up until it was inconvenient.

                    It lasted until 2014 when the Ukraine became beligerent, and joined forces with Russia’s enemy.

                    But hey, don’t let international law, broken treaties, or war crimes get in the way of your fanfiction about a misunderstood empire just looking for hugs.

                    I just look at the example set by the USA. That makes me think that these things are not just some "fanfiction".

                    Reply
                    • Res Publica …
                      30 April 2025 at 2:32 pm

                      So you're an expert in demography, anthropology, and history, on top of your extensive foreign policy and military experience?

                      Fascinating.

                      That’s a hell of a résumé for someone whose arguments collapse under the weight of a Wikipedia summary and who wouldn’t make it through a High School debate without sobbing into a stack of RT headlines.

                      You claim Ukraine isn’t European because of "ethnic mixtures". Which is a take so historically illiterate and racially suspect it could’ve been cribbed from a 19th-century imperial handbook.

                      You casually dismiss sovereignty as irrelevant, treaties as optional, and war crimes as just unfortunate necessities. All while simping for a regime that breaks its promises the second they become inconvenient.

                      Your grasp of international law is nonexistent, and your historical analysis boils down to “Russia good, West bad” delivered with the smugness of someone who conflates cynicism with intelligence.

                      And more than that: you’re lying. About well-documented, widely reported, and easily verifiable events. Like Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

                      So either you’re hopelessly misinformed or you’re knowingly dishonest. I’ll let you pick which is worse.

                    • mikesh …
                      30 April 2025 at 4:18 pm

                      So you're an expert in demography, anthropology, and history, on top of your extensive foreign policy and military experience?

                      Straw man argument since I never claimed to be.

                      That’s a hell of a résumé for someone whose arguments collapse under the weight of a Wikipedia summary and who wouldn’t make it through a High School debate without sobbing into a stack of RT headlines.

                      Aother straw man argument. I am not engaging in a High School debate.

                      You claim Ukraine isn’t European because of "ethnic mixtures". Which is a take so historically illiterate and racially suspect it could’ve been cribbed from a 19th-century imperial handbook.

                      I also mentioned geographic location and non membership of the EU. I forgot to mention that its religion is Orthodox: it used to be Russian Orthodox, but I think they are now Ukrainian Orthodox. I also forgot that its two main languages, Russian and Ukrainian, are Slavic rather than Romance or Germanic.

                      You casually dismiss sovereignty as irrelevant, treaties as optional, and war crimes as just unfortunate necessities. All while simping for a regime that breaks its promises the second they become inconvenient.

                      I didn't say sovereignty is irrelevant. I mentioned that the US think that that is the case. And treaties are not written on stone tablets. Perhaps, if circumstances warrant, they should be broken.

                      Your grasp of international law is nonexistent, and your historical analysis boils down to “Russia good, West bad” delivered with the smugness of someone who conflates cynicism with intelligent.

                      I accept that there are sometmes situations which probably override a strict adherence to international law. And as far as Russia and the West are concerned there is probably good and bad on both sides.

                      At least I give reasons why I say what I do, which is more than I can say for you. You just misquote me and then say "rubbish" as if that was an argument.

                    • Res Publica …
                      30 April 2025 at 5:49 pm

                      Dishonest it is, then.

                      You're right: you didn’t claim to be an expert. But you certainly posture like one, offering sweeping pronouncements on ethnicity, religion, and language as if they justify invasion or somehow disqualify Ukraine from being European.

                      That’s not an argument. It’s a stack of Trivial Pursuit answers dressed up as geopolitical insight.

                      You say treaties aren’t written on stone tablets. True. But they’re signed in good faith by nations that understand international law only matters because it holds under pressure—when it's inconvenient, not when it’s easy.

                      If your standard is “break agreements when you feel like it,” then your worldview isn’t based on law, peace, or principle. It’s based on force—so long as your preferred empire is the one doing the forcing.

                      Let’s not pretend that “both sides do bad things” is some kind of sophisticated take. It’s not. It’s a tired dodge to avoid responsibility. Saying “Russia has its reasons” doesn’t make those reasons good, just, or legal.

                      It just makes you complicit in excusing them.

                      You claim to offer reasons, but all I see is deliberate ambiguity, clumsy revisionism, and the kind of moral relativism that collapses the moment it’s aimed at your own side.

                      You haven’t built a case. You’ve built a fog machine.

                      You throw out half-truths and Kremlin talking points, then sulk when someone with a working moral compass calls you on them.

                      And honestly, I don’t even think you’re here to debate. You’re here to launder atrocity through pedantry. Which, I suppose, is your right.

                      But if you’re going to defend war crimes, at least try not to do such a thoroughly shit job of it.

                    • mikesh …
                      30 April 2025 at 7:11 pm

                      You're right: you didn’t claim to be an expert. But you certainly posture like one, offering sweeping pronouncements on ethnicity, religion, and language as if they justify invasion or somehow disqualify Ukraine from being European.

                      You stated that Russia invaded a European country. So, instead spouting a lot of bullshit like the above, why won't you just be content to tell us what you think makes Ukraine European.

                      If your standard is “break agreements when you feel like it,” then your worldview isn’t based on law, peace, or principle. It’s based on force—so long as your preferred empire is the one doing the forcing.

                      I did not say that. I said that one would have to break an agreement when a change of circumstances warranted such a breach. It must be obvious that a change of circumstances in Ukraine occurred in 2014.

                      But if you’re going to defend war crimes, at least try not to do such a thoroughly shit job of it.

                      That's rather difficult when you attribute to me, words that I never said.

  4. Psycho Milt 4
    29 April 2025 at 2:13 pm

    "Kennedy warned against pitting a nuclear adversary into a corner that could lead the adversary to desperate actions"

    Sarah Paine of the US Naval War College has various YouTube videos about wartime strategy and one of her constants is "Don't put your enemy on death ground," ie don't push your enemy into a situation where if they don't fight, they die. People with nuclear weapons will push the button in that situation.

    It was visible on 7 Oct 2023 – Israelis armed with a handgun and 15 rounds going out to take on a platoon of Hamas fighters armed with AK47s, grenades and rocket launcers, because if they didn't fight they'd be killed anyway. Similar dynamic in Gaza at the moment.

    Reply
  5. mikesh 5
    30 April 2025 at 1:54 pm

    NATO was created to protect Europe from a conventional Russian invasion. The strategy was pretty simple: the European's hold the line while the US flies reinforcements over before counterattacking.

    One would have to be pretty dumb to believe the US cares tuppence for Ukraine's "sovereignty". As far as they are concerned Ukraine is a "domino": a useful means of destabilizing Russia. Did they have any regard for Nicaragua's sovereignty, or Cuba's; Venezuela's or Iran's.

    Reply

Leave a Comment