Aaron Maté offerred a presentation and comments regarding U.S. policy in major international conflicts.
Controversy and debate surround topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian War. In recent months, these two issues have dominated the news because they are polarizing topics. News sources will shift to one side or the other, and it often influences readers’ opinions.
The Center for Civic Engagement’s Institute for Peace Studies presented award-winning journalist and host Aaron Maté to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian War. Maté approached these conversations through the lens of United States foreign policy. The event is part of a series that encourages respectful dialogue amongst students while allowing vastly different perspectives to shine.
One of the major highlights from the lecture was Maté’s unique perspective on Ukraine’s role in the war and how their divided history and foreign influence affect the country’s current political climate. With this view, he challenged the audience to think more critically about Ukraine and Russia and consider all angles of the issue.
Where one side of Ukraine consists of a majority who despise Russia and the other identifies with Russia and its culture, Maté claimed that pulling the country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a recipe for disaster.
“In a country that is so polarized, it makes no sense to me – especially if it’s on Russia’s border – to push it into a military alliance that has many other members that are very hostile to Russia,” Maté said. “I think it’s a very reasonable solution, in that situation, to have neutrality.”
Hannah Alfasso, a senior global studies and history double major, thought Maté’s perspective on the Russo-Ukrainian War was a unique and important addition to the discussion.
“With the Russia-Ukraine one, I think he took a different stance than what the U.S. believes,” Alfasso said. “Because the U.S. is very much on the side of Ukraine and not really that much on the side of Russia. And he sort of blurred the lines a bit which I think got people thinking.”
Maté mentioned that the main talking point of the media was to raise support for the war.
“For a while during the initial stages of the Ukraine war, the line was ‘we are defending democracy and we’re stopping authoritarianism,’” Maté said.
Some students believe that the war in Ukraine is typically presented as a black-and-white issue, arguing that it is deeper than that and should be treated as such.
“In any situation, no one’s going to be perfect and someone’s going to be the devil,” Alfasso said. “Every area has a grey area. With Russia, I believe what [Maté] did was make them a little more humane instead of just making them the devil – which is really important when talking about this issue.”
Alexander Williams, a junior history major, shared a similar sentiment. Williams mentioned how he grew up consuming media that always caricatured Russia as the “big bad guys” and how it is important to push back against these generalizations.
“I personally benefited from that talk,” Williams said. “I would say because I am guilty myself of viewing Russia in a very negative light. As historians, we have to take into consideration the considerations of other countries.”
