At the time of the euphoric early days of peace at the end of the Second World War – ‘end of all wars!’ - in 1945, if the survivors had been able to predict what we are seeing in 2026, they would have switched from weeping for joy to screaming in shock and disappointment.
We now have the fourth anniversary of a war where one of the major countries of our world thought that getting away with their 2014 invasion of Crimea could be extended to Ukraine. Well, it couldn’t and the Ukrainians have put up one of the bravest and most determined fights ever seen. The military are undergoing the most terrible war conditions imaginable in their frozen trenches, with the risk of immediate death around every corner. The survivors will remain deeply traumatised. Three million Ukrainians have left their country. The remainder are also facing hugely stressful conditions. They are lacking power and heat in bitterly cold weather, missing a normal life of safety and comfortable human behaviour. Just because one human being and his cronies considered that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – a long-running disaster by any standards - should never have been dismantled. Despite it having been done voluntarily back in 1991, with Russia and Ukraine active participants. The gang of January 2022 happily embraced the certainty that hundreds of thousands – Russians and Ukrainians – would die in this pursuit of an outdated obsession. Time to weep again, but in sadness this time.
That war will continue until one of the two sides weakens and where either Ukraine concedes to the current demands of the other side or Vladimir Putin legs it to Outer Mongolia and Russia throws in the towel. With all those hundreds and thousands of victims taken from a previously happy life to a violent death. Put simply: At least 99-99 per cent of ‘innocent bystanders’ (only a legal term because in practice they’re hard to find) will judge that Russia had no right whatsoever to attack Ukraine, but will right prevail
In the meantime, the USA has shown a somewhat ambivalent approach to Russia:Ukraine peace talks, while toning down the ‘blank cheque’ in military support for Ukraine; and has embarked on various offensives that no one would have predicted. It started with Venezuela and Greenland, though both slid quietly onto the ‘back burner.’ With a far more worrying danger afoot. Which is, of course, the military attack on Iran, launched by the USA, with Trump making bold predictions that the USA with Israel will obliterate Iran’s nuclear power. He does get away with murder … no I’ll rephrase that … he never faces the music properly. He claimed last year that he’d already ‘utterly obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear facilities. But he hadn’t. Trump definitely ‘shoots from the hip’ and is never held accountable.
The innocent bystander – quite in demand at present - would say: You can’t just barge in and do damage in a sovereign State that has not directly attacked you. Well, you can.
In 2011 it was NATO that sent into Libya a squad of French bombers that destroyed Gaddafi’s desert convoy racing for the border, and left him at the mercy of the revolutionaries close behind. NATO did it mainly because the Libyan authorities were killing their own people. The victims had been merely protesting against the ruling regime. And now Iran’s leader Khameini has followed in Gaddafi’s footsteps.
In Iran the human carnage has been far worse than in Libya. Political protests from its own people were met with the most ruthless attacks by the authorities. It has been estimated that tens of thousands of innocent protesters lost their lives, with hard evidence on the victims that the authorities shot to kill. The viciously destructive behaviour by the perpetrators is no doubt finding extremist religious justification. So the outside world is morally entitled to invade and remove the people who directed or carried out such atrocities; but not to the extent of killing any peaceful inhabitants.
It is undoubtedly a huge gamble by Mr Trump. Throwing caution to the wind is an understatement. The attack has certainly been on the drawing board for months, but history has proved that that is precisely where such ideas should usually remain.
The USA/Israel attack in Iran has now sparked retaliation within other areas of the Middle East. Even if that dies down, political change requires existing Iran’s leaders and their supporters to be removed from power; with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ instruments of repression destroyed. Then, will any successor regime in Iran achieve peace and stability? Not remotely guaranteed. If and when you have precipitate change like this, it rarely ushers in the peace so strenuously pursued. Mr Trump has gambled big time. He undoubtedly adores the expression: “Fortune favours the brave.” But lurking menacingly in the nearby shadows is: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
It is undoubtedly a huge gamble by Mr Trump. Throwing caution to the wind is an understatement.