Today we celebrate the sad anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Much has been written about it and, as in all wars, the most difficult thing is to discern the balanced analysis from the biased vision. There is no doubt that in the West we are subjected to an information policy that exaggerates the successes of Ukraine and places all the responsibility for the war on Russia. Faced with this, it is advisable to triangulate the information and investigate the reasons for those who do not think like us.
In this sense, it is necessary to verify that Europe and the United States acted with a high degree of irresponsibility since the fall of the Soviet Union, by ceasing to consider Russia as a geopolitical actor of the first order and, very particularly, by allowing its realignment with China. Although Europe tried to appease Russia, strengthening its commercial ties, it did so at the cost of generating an energy dependency that has now been shown to be thoughtless, as it is not associated with political ties that would guarantee peace.
The United States, for its part, was blinded in its expansionist vocation of NATO, without attributing to Russia a role that would allow it to recognize itself as a great power. So far, some of the most direct errors of the Western coalition.
However, the proper analysis of the war requires that we put the first focus on the direct contenders, Russia and Ukraine. Russia has spent decades trying to rework its national history in the face of the catastrophe that the disintegration of the USSR entailed, since it was catastrophic that parts, such as eastern Ukraine, whose political, social and historical ties were deep, broke apart.
But Russia’s big problem is its inability to create an attractive model for its neighbors. Only with the help of unscrupulous dictators like Lukashenko or through armed intervention, as in Georgia, is it able to maintain the former Soviet republics – or parts of them – as allies.
Ukraine, for its part, left the Russian orbit with the Euromaidan, which was forged by the refusal of its leaders to sign an agreement with the European Union. It is true that this movement has important shadows, since it accentuated the civil confrontation in the areas of greatest Russian influence.
But it is also true that both the unilateral annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass were Russian actions contrary to international law. It is even more relevant that at the moment when Putin decides to invade and Zelensky, instead of fleeing, chooses to resist in Kyiv, Ukraine reaffirms itself as a nation.
As of February 24, 2022, we find ourselves facing the struggle between an old aggressor empire and a new nation that legitimately exercises its own defense. That is why to speak now, as some analysts do, of a civil war in Ukraine is to distort reality. Nor can we blame the West for fueling the war, since it only allows the invaded nation to repel the attack. Which is not to say that we should not seek negotiated peace.
And without a doubt in that search it will be necessary to consider the possibility that some part of the Ukrainian territory remains in the Russian orbit. Not out of justice, since it would be fair for Ukraine to recover its territorial integrity and within this framework recognize the differential facts of the parties with the greatest Russian influence, but out of pragmatism, since a scenario that does not go through chronification seems almost impossible, or worse still. , the escalation of the conflict, if it is not assuming that cost.
