Bakhmut. There it is: the reminder of a war still in progress. Sometimes it is easy to forget the ongoing nature of reality in places that are not here – the harsh northern Winter, leafless trees along trenches, muddy tracks, snowy tanks, and soldiers now dressed in white. Then there are the civilians: their destroyed houses and apartment blocks, the power outages, the displaced persons and refugees. Those of us outside of Ukraine can only try to imagine, we can sympathise, we can support, but as time goes on it is easy to forget that the same air raid sirens, the same day to day possibility of missile attacks, the interminable hours and days of waiting for some kind of break – that all of this continues. Every day. Over and over.

Then there is the thought that most of these civilians, and even most of the fighters for that matter, are individual people caught up in the dynamics of states and the various vagaries that lead to war. They are not in a position to turn back the clock, to end the war or negotiate peace. That lack of influence is something common to all of us who are not world leaders. While we cannot settle peace treaties on paper, we can still choose to do things in our own little way. So, Ukrainian civilian volunteers make candles for in the trenches, and nets to camouflage positions and gear. They make food; help the injured and displaced. Those of us in places not at war can keep doing our little bits from a distance and hope it has some effect.

   

Victory, Success, Defeat and Glory: what do they actually mean?

Following the news from Ukraine, one regularly comes across these words. The question is, what do they actually mean in practice?  In some contexts, success, victory and defeat refer exclusively to the battlefield and what might happen there. But it would be interesting to know what some of the rhetoric would actually look like in practice. Glory, for example. How does it look? How does it feel? I admit to feeling a little sceptical about the use of phrases like “Glory to Ukraine”. Everlasting light? Fields of wheat waving in the sun? People being able to picnic in the park on a Sunday, without the fear of missiles? These are images I associate more with “Peace” than with “Glory”. Glory has more of a hard edge to it I find, and perhaps a touch of a hardening battle mentality. And after a year and a bit of war, that’s probably not so surprising. Still, I am not sure that all this talk of glory necessarily moves anyone closer to peace.

The Chinese Peace Plan

On the anniversary of the invasion, China put out a peace plan. Thank you, China.

What of Russia?

“Russian defeat” – that Russia leaves Ukraine, yes. But beyond that? There should be room and respect for Russian language, culture and people as part of any peace plan. Dialogue between civilians in Russia and civilians elsewhere might be helpful, necessary even. And there must be some differentiation between the warmongering Russia that the world has come to know over the past year, and whatever Russia might offer or become in future.

The Fuzzy Brown Line Stance

The Fuzzy Brown line supports a working plan for peace in Ukraine, and it condemns warmongering in any shape or form. It does not support investment in war or military hardware, equipment or infrastructure of warfare, nor the promotion of participation in war as a career, or any form of propaganda of war. It condemns illegal invasions, or the threat thereof, across borders of land or water, and supports the sovereignty of individual states and individual persons within states. It wants Russia to hurry up and leave Ukraine.  

The Fuzzy Brown Line further suggests adding a clause about parachuting a large number of teddy bears across the frontline to assist with furthering the cause of peace and goodwill on the battlefield.