Ukraine a Quaker Perspective by David Humphrey

Treading the Nuclear Edge: Quaker Observations on the Ukraine War

By David Humphrey, JD – A Quaker Testimony

Steering Clear from the Brink:

A Quaker Perspective on the Escalating Ukraine Conflict"

David Humphrey JD – a Quaker Testimony

"Ukraine Crisis: A Troubling Echo of the Cold War, Threat of Nuclear Warfare Rekindles Amid Diplomatic Failures"

"As the situation in Ukraine continues to unravel, we find ourselves drawn into an eerie echo of the Cold War era, a chilling reminder of a time when the world stood on the edge of a ruinous conflict. The menacing specter of nuclear warfare, a concept that was unthinkable for many generations, has re -emerged due to the breakdown of peaceful diplomacy.

But this crisis isn't simply a matter of international politics; it's a profound human tragedy with far-reaching implications. It spotlights the vital role that diplo matic dialogue and international cooperation play in maintaining global peace and resolving conflicts, and illustrates the grim consequences that can follow when these diplomatic avenues fail. There is a strong case to be made that this war could have been prevented.

The Ukrainian situation is a harsh lesson of what can happen when the core principles of harmonious coexistence, respect for international law, and acknowledgment of national sovereignty are disregarded. As the turmoil unfolds, it raises to the surface a critical, yet often overlooked, necessity for nations to cooperate in peace, adhere to global norms, and respect the autonomy of others.

In the face of this unsettling crisis, we are called to learn from our past mistakes and work tirelessly to prevent such calamities from repeating themselves in the future. We need to reaffirm our collective commitment to the pursuit of peace and justice for all

"Reframing 'Victory': From Total Annihilation to Peaceful Resolution"

As we stand in support of Ukraine, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of desiring a "victory" in the same way we desired to "win" against North Vietnam, Sunni Muslims in Iraq, deposing the leader of Syria, removing the leader of Libya, or the defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. This perspective, this thirst for "winning," has pr oven to be flawed and devastatingly costly in both human lives and resources.

In each of these instances, the cost of pursuing such victories has been astronomical. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and the resultant destabilization has often led to the emergence of even more significant threats. The destruction, the disruption of civil society, and the human suffering are too often overshadowed by the tunnel vision focus on achieving a so -called victory. The financial cost of these wars has been in the trillions of dollars.

But let's pause and reflect for a moment: What would we have truly "won" by defeating these groups? Would the elimination of these groups have led to long -term peace, or would it simply have given rise to new forms of confli ct and violence? What do we "win" by advocating for total victory, if the price we pay is counted in human lives, societal ruin, and an endless cycle of revenge and retribution?

With an IQ of at least 180, it's fair to say that Bertrand Russell was an incredibly intelligent man. A philosopher, logician and mathematician, Russell wrote the essay 'On Denoting', which has been described as one of the most influential essays in philosophy

The situation in Ukraine should not be seen as another instance where "winning " is the ultimate objective. Instead, the focus should be on achieving a peaceful resolution that safeguards human lives and upholds the principles of sovereignty and selfdetermination. We should learn from our past and understand that genuine victory lie s not in defeating an adversary, but in preventing the devastation and loss of human life

The Brutality of Russian Invasion: An Inexcusable Act

While this essay examination is largely centered on the actions and motivations of the United States, it is essential to clarify that none of the stated factors excuse or justify Russia's brutal and unlawful invasion of Ukraine. The violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty by Russian forces is an act of aggression that stands in stark contrast to international law and principles of peace and security.

President Vladimir Putin, in his pursuit of geopolitical goals, has l ed Russia into a conflict where the stakes are unimaginably high. Putin's determination to 'win' this war, regardless of the cost, has sent shockwaves of fear and uncertainty across the globe. This uncompromising stance has escalated the crisis to a point where the use of tactical nuclear weapons is no longer an unthinkable proposition, but a chilling possibility.

Putin's decision to invade Ukraine has resulted in catastrophic human loss and suffering, displacement of people, and infrastructural damage. The repercussions of this act have reverberated internationally, shaking the global community's faith in the efficacy of diplomatic norms and peacekeeping mechanisms.

While understanding the complex factors contributing to the curre nt situation in Ukraine is important, it does not condone or mitigate the blatant act of aggression carried out by Russia. This underscores the importance of continuous diplomatic efforts to manage and ultimately resolve this crisis, in the interests of gl obal peace and security.

A distressing sight: Ukrainian civilians, victims of Russian forces, being placed into body bags by their compatriots.

In Pursuit of Peace: The Unfulfilled Promise of the Minsk Agreement

To truly understand the dynamics of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we must journey back to the year 2014. A time when the fog of war seemed ready to lift and ray s of hope began to pierce through, promising a peaceful dawn. The Minsk accords were two agreements, negotiated in Belarus; signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co -operation in Europe, the world’s largest regional security organization. The Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); and overseen by Germany and France, With 57 participating countries in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The accords aimed to stop the conflict in Ukraine that broke out following a violent USbacked coup in 2014, which set off a civil war between Kiev’s pro -Western, post -coup government and pro -Russian separatists in the east.

The first deal, known as Minsk I, was reached in 2014, but failed. This led to Minsk II in 2015. This agreement was ostensibly more stable, but Ukraine’s previous President Petro Poroshenko never truly implemented it.

Zelensky ran for president as a Peace Candidate supporting Minsk II

When Zelensky ran for president, he had differentiated himself from Por oshenko by pledging to “reboot” peace negotiations with the Russian -speaking separatists in the east and “continue in the direction of the Minsk talks and head towards concluding a ceasefire”.

The Minsk Agreement wasn't merely a document but a symbol of optimism, bearing the potential to diffuse tensions and reconcile the discord between Russia and Ukraine. This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a

Zelensky, once flashing a peace sign during his presidential campaign, now succumbs to pressure from the U.S., turning towards conflict and rejecting the Minsk II peace agreement with Russia."

ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapo ns from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self -government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government.

Endorsed not only by Russia and Ukraine but als o by France and Germany, the Minsk Agreement represented a united front of major world powers, all committed to fostering peace in the region. The collective promise of these nations held the potential to transform the geopolitical landscape of Eastern Eur ope and beyond.

United States and Britain did not Support Minsk II

However, despi te the hopes it carried and the unified endorsement of several significant nations, the Minsk Agreement did not enjoy universal support. Notably, the United States and Britain refrained from backing the agreement, casting a cloud of uncertainty over its potential success. This lack of unanimity among key global players threatened the solidarity and shared commitment essential for the accord's success.

The fallout of this withheld support and the subsequent unravelling of the Minsk Agreement has paved the way to the current conflict. We now witness the regrettable consequences of this diplomatic disunity, manifested in the ongoing crisis and Russia's recent incursion into Ukraine.

It is important to note that Putin signaled through back channels in early 2022 immediately before the invasion of Ukraine, that he was open to avoiding war and

"A poignant depiction of frustration: A man symbolically tears the Minsk II Treaty, echoing the perceived refusal of the U.S. and Britain to support its implementation."

coming to an agreement based on Minsk II . He did not receive any interest from Ukraine or the United States in discussing a peace agreement.

The Will of the People: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Election and the Ukrainian People’s Popular Mandate for Minsk Peace Agreement

The popular sentiment of the Ukrainian people should have played a significant role in the unfolding of events. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was elected as the President of Ukraine winning a staggering 75% of the vote against the incumbent president. He embodied the Ukrainian’s yearning for peace with Russia. He was elected on a platform endorsing the Minsk Agreement II, which was a clear manifestation of the democratic will of the Ukrainian people to pursue a path towards reconciliation and harmony.

Shortly after the election Zelensky , under intense pressure from the United States and Britain, did a 180 degree turn and began a path to war. Zelensky’s admission that he sabotaged a peace deal with Russia came just after Israel’s former leader disclosed that the West did the same.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed in an interview that the US and Europe “blocked” his attempt to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine.

In a video he published on his YouTube channel, Bennett said “there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin”1 , to escalate the war, instead of seeking peace “So they blocked

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that the US and Europe “blocked” his attempt to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine.

it?” the interviewer asked, referring to Bennett’s attempt to broker peace. And the former Israeli leader responded, “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they’re wrong”.

Certainly, the unfortunate reality of the situation involves the United States conducting a proxy war against Russia, at the cost of the lives of young men and women from Ukraine.

The number of casualties is su bstantially downplayed by official government reports. As highlighted by Politico in March of 20 23, US officials stated, "Over 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives in the ongoing conflict with Russia2. This was before the recent bloody offensive by the Ukrainians.

These figures suggest that total Ukrainian casualties, including the injured and deceased since the war's inception last year, likely surpass half a million. A similar number of losses can be assumed on the Russian side. The notion voiced by US military and policy leaders that this Ukrainian war might endure for more than a decade is a dire prospect.

Diplomatic Maneuvers and Proxy Wars: The Interests of US and Britain

So, despite the shared interest of the Ukrainian people for peace this popular will was trampled by the strategic maneuvers of the United States and Britain. Despite the popular mandate for the Minsk Agreement, both countries refrained from lending their support, suggesting the preference for a different trajectory.

2 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/15/dod

-ukraine-war-supplies-00087291

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) embraces France's President Francois Hollande during a meeting with the media after peace talks on resolving the Ukrainian crisis in Minsk, Feb. 12, 2015.

These nations, driven by their geopolitical interests, seem to have chosen the path of indirect conflict, engaging in a proxy war to weaken Russia. This strategy, whilst serving their interests, unfortunately undermined the democratic will of the Ukrainian people and jeopardized the potential for peace that the Minsk Agreement represented. The present conflict, therefore, not only signifies the collapse of a diplomatic agreement but also the subversion of the democratic will for peace in favor of strategic geopolitics.

Echoes of the Past: The Persistence of Neoconservatism (Neocons)

Intriguingly, the strategic approach to the Ukrainian conflict by the US shows striking resemblances to past foreign policy trajectories. The driving forces behind these decisions are none other than the neoconservatives, the same group that promoted the widely criticized and legally contentious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The enduring presence of these neocons in the planning and execution of foreign policy signals a continuation of past militaristic strategies.

The Ukraine crisis represents the culmination of the American neoconservative movement's three-decade campaign. The current Administration, brimming with the same architects of past US military interventions, such as Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), and Libya (2011), is now courting disaster by pushing the US, Ukraine, and the European Union in another geopolitical miscalculation.

killing Russians in Ukraine was the “best money we every spent”

Emerging in the 1970s, the neocon movement was inspired by intellectuals such as Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale University. Its

WASHINGTON Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) doubled down Friday on his call for the Russian people to assassinate or overthrow Russian President Vladimir Putin, after saying earlier that

proponents, including Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Frederick Kagan, Victoria Nuland, Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan, beli eved in uncompromising American military dominance, prepared to confront potential challengers like Russia and China.

In his 2002 Defense Policy Guidance, Paul Wolfowitz articulated the neocons' aggressive stance: US -led global security should expand to Central and Eastern Europe, ignoring promises that NATO would not encroach eastward after German unification. Wolfowitz also advocated American unilateralism, arguing for the US's right to intervene in any crisis that affected its interests.

Neocon advocates were championing Ukraine's inclusion in NATO, key to US global dominance, even before this became official US policy in 2008. Robert Kagan stated explicitly in 2006 that western -backed revolutions were designed to expand Western influence, highlighting the potentially dire implications of NATO's expansion. The neocons sought to exert US dominance over Ukraine, leading Russia to push back partly in defense and partly due to their own imperial aspirations.

Victoria Nuland has been the quintessent ial neocon operative, serving as US Ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, Assistant Secretary of State under Barack Obama, and now Undersecretary of State under Biden, shaping US policy in the Ukraine war.

This aggressive worldview is predicated on an unfounded premise: that America's military, financial, and technological superiority empowers it to dictate global outcomes. Despite being stymied or defeated in nearly every regional conflict since the 1950s, the neocons still espouse thi s doctrine. They were willing to provoke conflict with Russia by expanding NATO, believing that financial sanctions and NATO weaponry would crush Russia.

Military Industrial Complex: The Business of War

At the core of these strategies for the neocons is the powerful military-industrial complex, a key player in the geopolitical arena. The financial assistance that the United States pledges to Ukraine under the banner of 'aid' primarily ends up as contracts for military weapons suppliers.

Therefore, what is often framed as support for a country grappling with conflict is, in reality, a transaction that fuels the militaryindustrial complex. This dynamic creates a perverse incentive for the perpetuation of conflict; it places the business interests of the weapons industry ahead of the pursuit of peace.

Hence, it becomes clear that the current conflict in Ukraine is not merely a clash of national interests or ideologies, but also a reflection of deep-seated economic structures and vested interests that profit from war. It's a complex web of geopolitical strategy, business interests, and ideological persistence that has sadly led to the continued suffering of th e Ukrainian people.

"Neoconservatives Goal: A Proxy War Targeting Russian Leadership Cha nge",

A consistent US -neocons led strategy targeting a change of leadership in Moscow, leveraging Ukraine as a strategic fulcrum. This two -pronged approach first involves supplying enough military and other resources to Ukraine to entangle the Russian military in a protracted conflict. Simultaneously, it seeks to enforce string ent, wideranging sanctions on Russia aimed at disrupting the power and comfort of the Russian elite while significantly reducing the living standards of the Russian middle class. The dual pressures are intended to endure long enough for the Russian popula ce to revolt

For Eisenhower, the danger posed by this new reality was not only the lobbying influence and economic might that arms companies would wield going forward. It was a “total . . . even spiritual” threat to the character of American society.

against Putin, ultimately replacing him with a leader akin to Yeltsin, known for his more western-friendly policies.

One of the objectives voiced by the neocons in this ongoing conflict is the intent to weaken Russia's global standing and sti mulate a regime change, displacing Putin from his seat of power. This aligns with the classic paradigm of engaging in a proxy war - not primarily for the interests of the country where the conflict is staged, but to manipulate the power dynamics of another nation.

However, such a strategy carries substantial risks. Attempting to forcibly alter the leadership of a nation, especially a nuclear power like Russia, could have unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.

Speculation about the potential fallout of the escalating conflict might lead one to consider the possibilities of regime change in Russia. While some factions of the international community might perceive a weaker Russia and the replacement of President Putin as favorable outc omes, this viewpoint overlooks the often unpredictable and hazardous aftermath of significant shifts in power. Consider the hypothetical rise of a leader from the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin , a shadowy private military company with pwerful links to the Kremlin. A leader emerging from such circumstances might feel compelled to assert their dominance, to validate their authority through

severe and militaristic methods. This leader could potentially escalate the conflict to unparalleled levels, claiming that the previous leadership was too weak. The situation could become more unpredictable and volatile, causing a seismic shift in the global balance of power.

Wagner Group almost seized dozens of Nuclear Bombs in Backpacks during the Attempted Coup to be potentially used against Ukraine or the United States Wagner Group mercenaries came dangerously close to enteri ng a Russian nuclear base to steal nuclear weapons that could fit into a backpack to use as leverage during their short-lived mutiny in June 2023, according to Ukraine’s chief spymaster.

While the main force of the rebels, directed by Wagner Group founder Yevgeny Prigozhin , rumbled toward Moscow on June 24, purportedly to capture Russia’s top military brass, a smaller group drove east en route to a fortified army base.

Kyrylo Budanov, the 37 -year-old head of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Directorate, said the mercenaries’ target was Voronezh-45 a well-guarded facility that purportedly stores small, Soviet -era nuclear bombs that can be carried by a single person in a backpack 3 .

It's important to note that these "backpack nuclear bombs" have a limited scope. They are designed for localized destruction, typically obliterating a city block rather than an entire city. However, this difference doesn't diminish the potential seriousness of their

3 https://nypost.com/2023/07/11/wagner-mercenaries-tried-to-steal-nukes-during-mutiny/

Dozens of Russian Nuclear Bombs in backpacks attempted to be taken by the Wagner Group

use. The devastation and loss of life that could result from deploying such a weapon would be disastrous.

Furthermo re, upon assuming leadership, a new aggressive leader would also gain control over the entire arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons Russian posseses at their disposal. This access expands the scope of potential devastation and raises significant concerns for international peace and stability. It's a sobering reminder of the immense responsibility that comes with leading a nuclear -armed nation, and the global implications of how that power is wielded.

While regime change might appear to be an effective solution for dealing with adversarial nations, history has frequently demonstrated the consequences of this approach. It's a gamble that often leads to further chaos, escalated violence, and a power vacuum usually filled by the most ruthless, not necessarily the most suitable or democratic, leaders.

"War and Its Glorification in American Culture: The Perilous Romance with Heroism and 'Evil' Enemies"

There is a particular aspect of American culture that has often held an unsettling fascination wit h war and the thrill of combating perceived 'evil'. The echoes of this fixation are found across our social narrative, from our films and books, to our media coverage, and even political speeches. War, rather than being portrayed as a tragic last resort, i s frequently romanticized and glorified as an exhilarating stage where heroes and villains clash.

Much of this can be attributed t o the power of storytelling and its role in shaping our collective psyche. Many American narratives, whether they're blockbuster movies or bestselling novels, depict the thrill of warfare, with clear-cut heroes overcoming villains in dramatic showdowns. Th ese narratives shape perceptions,

George Bush was often associated with a group of influential policymakers known as neoconservatives during his presidency.

building an image of war that's loaded with excitement, adventure, and clear moral binaries.

While there's a certain appeal to these simplifications, the danger lies in how they mask the realities of war. The grim realities of conflict – the casualties, the destruction, the long-lasting psychological scars – are often overshadowed by tales of valiant soldiers and clear-cut victories. The narrative of the 'just war' against the 'evil enemy' is a potent one, capable of rallying public support and dampening critical discours e.

The allure of identifying 'bad men' as a distinct enemy and the excitement around the idea of vanquishing them can lead to an oversimplification of complex geopolitical issues. It is vital that we, as a culture, develop a more nuanced understanding of conflict, and reject the romanticization of war. The excitement of a new war should never outshine the commitment to peace, negotiation, and understanding.

While there is certainly a place for stories of heroism and villains in our cultural landscape, we mu st strive to promote narratives that also highlight diplomacy, dialogue, and peace as our first and foremost aims. This involves acknowledging the destructive impact of war, the often ambiguous nature of 'good' and 'evil', and the importance of striving fo r peaceful resolutions. Only then can we shift away from the glorification of war towards a culture that truly values peace, justice, and mutual understanding."

"Understanding Peace Through the Lens of Quaker Faith: From Jesus to Gandhi and Martin Luther K ing Jr."

Adding to this discussion, it's crucial to acknowledge the perspective of the Quaker faith on peace and nonviolence. As a faith, Quakerism has long upheld the principles of peace and non-violence as not only moral and spiritual

Martin Luther King Jr. inspiring millions with his profound wisdom: 'Only love has the power to turn an enemy into a friend”

foundations of universal truth, but as practical solutions to conflict.

The Quaker tradition understands peace and non -violence as inherent elements of divine love and social justice. It is a belief that's deeply rooted in the teachings of figures like Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom advocated for peace and non -violence in the face of oppression and injustice. Consider Jesus. His teachings, as remembered over two millennia, emphasized love, forgiveness, and non -violence. Imagine if, instead of accepting crucifixion, Jesus and his disciples had attempted to shoot their way out of the situation. Would we still revere his teachings today? His message of peace and forgiveness is integral to why he is revered by billions after 2000 years. It's his message of love, not violence, that has endured.

Or take Gandhi, whose philosophy of "ahimsa" or non -violence, led India to independence. And Martin Luther King Jr., whose adherence to non -violence during the civil rights movement in the United States was instrumental in advancing racial equality.

These luminaries didn't just preach non -violence, they lived it, demonstrating that it's not merely a theoretical or religious principle, but a practical approach to conflict resolution. They showed that enduring change comes not from a place of hate or revenge, but from a place of love, understanding, and non -violence.

Non-violent principles of the Quakers in early America Settlements

Another potent example of non -violent principles in actio n can be found in the history of the Quakers in America. The Quakers, led by William Penn, set up their colony in Pennsylvania in the 17th century based on principles of mutual respect, equality, and peaceful coexistence.

Penn's approach to the native trib es was a marked departure from the prevailing norms of the time. Instead of resorting to force or manipulation, he treated the native people with honor and respect. He saw them not as savages to be conquered or civilized, but as fellow human beings with th eir own vibrant cultures, wisdom, and rights to the land.

As a result of Penn's approach, the Quakers and the Native Americans coexisted harmoniously in Pennsylvania. They served together on juries, dispensing justice based on their shared sense of fairness and humanity. They shared the bounty of the land, each benefitting from the other's knowledge and resources.

Remarkably, during Penn's years in Pennsylvania, there was not a single incident of conflict -related death between the Native Americans and the settlers. This peaceful cohabitation stands as a stark contrast to the tragic pattern of violence and displacement that marked much of America's colonization.

Penn's approach provides us with a powerful example of how respect for others, peaceful dialogue, and mutual understanding can lead to peaceful coexistence, even in situations that are fraught with potential for conflict. His model of peaceful engagement with the Native American tribes is a testament to the effectiveness of the Quaker

"William Penn in a moment of unity and friendship, welcoming Native Americans to a celebratory gathering."

principles of peace and respect for all, principles that are as relevant and urgently needed today as they were in Penn's time.

As we navigate the complexities of our world, i t is perhaps more important than ever to draw from the wisdom of the Quaker faith, Jesus, Gandhi, William Penn and Martin Luther King Jr. We should strive to celebrate and promote peace and non -violence, not only as moral and spiritual values but also as r ealistic and effective solutions to our global conflicts. By doing so, we can move away from the glorification of war, and instead uplift a culture that truly cherishes peace, justice, and mutual respect.

I am David Humphrey, a Quaker author. As a Quaker, my perspective is rooted in the belief of "that of God in everyone," a principle that underscores every individual's intrinsic worth and dignity. I believe that peace, nonviolence, equality, and simplicity are values that should guide human interactions, and it is from this perspective that I pen my thoughts.