"I pray for peace in Ukraine" is what I would have written if I was(were?) a religious person. I strive for peace, I long for peace in Ukraine. I feel a slight shake in my elbows, a thump in my stomach, a twist in my guts when I think about how strongly I want the bloodshed in Ukraine to end (for all the personal reasons explained in another post). That's the closest I can get to "praying for peace in Ukraine".
On a semantic level, however, the phrase "peace in Ukraine", without further context, is meaningless. There are two peace narratives at war here and a middle ground is no longer available. At best, "praying for peace" may mean a return to the pre-war conditions, which at this advanced stage of the conflict, is also no longer an option, in my humble opinion. Thus, wanting "peace in Ukraine" in the abstract, without choosing between one of the two warring peace narratives, has now zero semantic content - you may mean by this "A" and its complete opposite "Ā" at the very same time.
Let me elaborate on this.
There are two peace narratives, two incompatible world views, at war over Ukraine. According to Putin's narrative, peace is disturbed by an aggressive alliance of Western forces whose ultimate goal is to suppress and rule over Russia. The western aggression can only be stopped by toppling the gang of neonazis and drug addicts, placed in Kiev by NATO as part of its plan to attack Russia.
"Peace" in this narrative means regime change in Ukraine, placing in charge leaders that are not NATO puppets, perhaps also separating the country in two (or more) autonomous entities, with only nominal federal structure on top (the Bosnia-Herzegovina model). "Peace" also means a return of Europe's geopolitical map to the mid-1990s, prior to NATO's expansion east.
This narrative dominates in Russia. It also finds kind ears in many other countries.
It appeals to people believing that a cabal of bankers and more broadly capitalists control the global means of production. Through their mainstream media, they subtly suppress the ordinary people (or "sheeple") into wanting to maintain this system and embrace its consumerism, despite its internal contradictions, deep unfairness, and exploitation of the masses. The expansion of this system east is an adverse development that should be resisted. This narrative finds kind ears among people that could be schematically categorised as "far-left".
The Putin's peace narrative also finds kind ears among "far-right" and conservative, "hard-right" audiences. In this worldview, we are at a culture war with existential repercussions. Liberals, gays, and somehow Muslims, (even Jews, in certain variants) have conspired to topple the nobble white or Christian race. They have conspired to change the traditional way of life in Europe and the "Anglo-Saxon" world. To undermine traditional families and make our children gay or trance, to make them hippies, drug addicts, snowflakes. Brave leaders, like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, are superheroes fighting the endgame in this battle.
In the above far-left, far-right, and hard-right worldviews, Putin withdrawing his forces from Ukraine would not bring peace. It would be a defeat, a retreat, in a broader, more significant conflict.
This is not the peace that they are praying for.
The alternative peace narrative comes from a completely opposite worldview. It's the mainstream view of the "West" functioning as an, albeit imperfect, liberal democracy.
In this worldview, the social and political system does harbour inefficiencies and imperfections but they come from objective differences in a complex and dynamic reality, not from a ruling class suppressing the masses. Meaningful changes, in this worldview, can be achieved and are achieved through a deliberative process within a civil and civic society, not with violent revolutions or heavy-handed leadership (i.e. authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships).
In this, the liberal worldview, Putin's regime is a source of evil. The media he controls churns poisonous propaganda. His army of hackers and trolls have propped if not even caused, enormously disruptive events, such as the election of Donald Trump as the US president, the radicalisation of the GOP and the exit of the UK from the EU. He has bankrolled neonazi and far-left groups across Europe, poisoning the democratic process and weakening cohesion all across Europe.
Peace, under this worldview, can only be achieved if Putin withdraws his forces from Ukraine and somehow stops his interference in world affairs. The best-case scenario here is that Putin loses his grip on power and Russia joins the free world.
Finally, "praying for peace" may mean "praying for a ceasefire". Praying that all sides put the guns down and resolve their difference through negotiations and dialogue.
This is always the preferable way of resolving conflict.
However, the conflict in Ukraine is not about controlling a certain resource. It does not come from historic tensions that have culminated beyond a breaking point. Tensions that could be eased through a reconciliation mechanism, following a ceasefire. Its roots are much more global and fundamental, running deep into our cognitive narratives and worldviews.
Even if a ceasefire is somehow reached, this will not resolve the underlying conflict. The underlying conflict has reached such a crescendo that only a radical change in the balance of power between the two sides can give us a new equilibrium. We cannot go back to the world we had just 4 days ago. So "praying for a ceasefire" no longer means "praying for peace", at the point we're at in Ukraine.
This is why "praying for peace" is now a meaningless phrase, if further context is not provided. Peace may mean exact opposites now or at best a utopian goal. Choosing sides, not between countries or nations, but between warring worldviews, is a logical, a semantic necessity.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου