DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Vicenç Fisas in Other News (Creative Commons: Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0)) – (translation by CPNN)

The truth, however, is that this war in the Ukraine cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human lives, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term.

Ukrainian soldiers fire an anti-aircraft gun near Bajmut on February 4.
EFE/EPA/SERGEY SHESTAK

One year after the start of the war in Ukraine, it is good to reflect on what has happened and what has not been done. The balance is sinister and not at all hopeful, since there is no end in sight in the short term. In my opinion, several points should be taken into consideration to reflect on the past, present and future.

Decisions that are irreversible or difficult to reverse have been made, such as increasing military spending, ending the status of neutral countries and expanding NATO. These decisions jeopardize the future of European security, and have ruined any possibility of resuming a shared security policy that could one day incorporate Russia. Many years will pass before this possibility can occur. Even if it is very costly, it is our obligation to think about future scenarios where we all fit into European security.

We have returned to the mentality of the cold war, of friend-foe and good and bad, increasing the warmongering and arms culture, not only in Europe, but throughout the world. We are facing a brutal setback in terms of prospects for peace and conflict resolution, and in the old continent a fatal blow has been dealt to the OSCE, which was the body that could have acted promptly and effectively in the moments of tension prior to the war. However, it was completely rendered useless, turning it into an already useless and discredited body in the face of the warmongering rage. Moreover, peace diplomacy, that of States with the capacity to influence and that of regional or international organizations, was hijacked and then annulled from the start, leaving us orphaned with actors willing to play this necessary role.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original article in Spanish.)

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

The decisions, from the first moment, have been on the military route, to the delight of the arms manufacturers, which has given rise to a continuous escalation on the war front, with the conviction of both parties that they could win the war, and in the case of Ukraine, thanks to a continuous supply of weapons by third countries. Russia, for its part, has also resorted to buying weapons abroad. The truth, however, is that this war cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human life, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term. Hopefully and if things change, perhaps the next generation may be able to mend the wounds. For the moment, what can be affirmed is that everyone loses, and it is delusional to think that destruction will one day lead us to glory, when it only leads us to misery.

It is not often that, in the face of an armed conflict, people bet so much on war and put aside the negotiating path to carry out a peace process. In the last half century, 90% of wars have ended at a negotiating table and a final peace agreement. Ukraine is one of the exceptions, and we should ask ourselves if this is a merit or a very serious mistake that we are committing.

I don’t know when, but I am convinced that one day the two parties will have to sit down to negotiate the status of eastern Ukraine, with the terrible paradox that any agreement that can be reached will hopefully not be very different from what that should have been done after the Minsk agreements were signed in 2015. Failure to do so is what has led us to where we are today, so it will be terrible to think of the price that will be paid for not having acted diligently when it was appropriate. In this sense, responsibilities are shared, although no one seems capable of recognizing their own mistakes or negligence.

– – – –

* Vicenç Fisas is a Spanish analyst of conflicts, international politics and peace processes. He has directed the School for the Culture of Peace of the Autonomous University of Barcelona from its foundation in 1999 until 2016, and he was the holder of the UNESCO Chair on Peace and Human Rights at the university. He received the National Human Rights Award in 1988.

(Thank you to Other News for having sent this to CPNN.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Boaventura de Sousa Santos* in MEER

One hundred years after World War I, Europe’s leaders are sleepwalking toward a new, all-out war. As in 1914, they believe that the war in Ukraine will be limited and short-lived. In 1914, the word in Europe’s chancelleries was that the war would last three weeks. It lasted four years and resulted in more than 20 million deaths. As was the case in 1918, the dominant view today holds that it is necessary to inflict exemplary punishment on the aggressor, so as to leave it broken and humbled for a long time.  

Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) brought peace to Europe until 1914

In 1918, the defeated power was Germany (and the Ottoman Empire). There were dissenting voices (John Maynard Keynes and a few others) for whom the complete humbling of Germany would be disastrous in terms of the reconstruction of Europe and of a lasting peace on the continent and in the world. Their warnings were not heeded, and twenty-one years later Europe was again at war. There followed five years of destruction that left more than 70 million people dead. History does not repeat itself, nor does it seem to teach us anything, but it does illustrate and highlight similarities and differences. Let me offer two illustrations.

By 1914, Europe had been experiencing relative peace for a hundred years, a period during which there had been many wars, but of a limited and short-lived nature. The secret of this peace lay in the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815). Held with the purpose of putting an end to the cycle of change, turmoil and war that had been set in motion by the French Revolution and made worse by the Napoleonic wars, it led to a treaty that was signed nine days before Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo. The whole conference was dominated by conservative forces, and the period that followed came to be known as the Restoration (of the old European order). The reason that meeting in Vienna comes to mind at this time has to do with another of its aspects. It was chaired by Klemens von Metternich, a great Austrian statesman whose main concern was to bring together all the European powers, the victors and the vanquished, in order to ensure lasting peace. It was clear that the defeated power (France) would have to suffer the consequences (territorial losses), but it signed the treaty along with all the other powers (Austria, England, Russia and Prussia), with conditions being imposed on all so as to ensure lasting peace across Europe. And so it came to be.

When compared to the present situation, there are numerous differences. The main difference is that, although this time the war is also taking place in Europe, the warring parties are a European and a non-European power (Russia and the US, respectively). The conflict has all the characteristics of a proxy war, one in which the two sides use a third country – ‘the country of sacrifice’ (in the present case, Ukraine) – to achieve geostrategic goals that go well beyond the country in question and even the region to which it belongs (Europe). In fact, the only reason Russia is at war with Ukraine is because it is at war with NATO, an organization whose Supreme Allied Commander for Europe “is traditionally a US commander.”

As an organization, NATO has been at the service of US geostrategic interests, especially since the end of the first Cold War. Once a steadfast champion, in other geopolitical contexts, of the self-determination of peoples, Russia is now illegally sacrificing these same principles to assert its own security concerns, after failing to have them recognized through peaceful means, and out of an undisguised imperial nostalgia. For its part, since the end of the first Cold War the US has striven to deepen Russia’s defeat, a defeat which in fact was probably more self-inflicted than brought about by any superiority on the part of its opponent. For a brief period, the diplomatic debate in Washington was between ‘partnership for peace’ and ‘the expansion of NATO to ensure the security of the emerging countries of the Soviet bloc’. Under President Clinton, the latter policy prevailed. Albeit for different reasons, the US, too, sees Ukraine as the ‘country of sacrifice’. In this light, the ultimate goal of the war in Ukraine is to inflict an unconditional defeat on Russia, preferably one that leads to regime change in Moscow. The duration of the war depends on that goal.

(Continued in right column)

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

Where is Russia’s incentive to end the war when the British Prime Minister permits himself to say that sanctions against Russia will continue, no matter what Russia’s position is at the present moment? Is it enough that Putin be ousted (as was the case with Napoleon in 1815), or is it Russia that needs to be ousted so that China’s expansion can be halted? There was also regime change in the 1918 humbling of Germany, but it all ended up leading to Hitler and an even more devastating war. President Zelensky’s political greatness could be construed as being either in recognition of the brave patriot who defends his country from the invader to the last drop of blood, or in recognition of the brave patriot who, faced with the imminence of so many innocent deaths and the asymmetry in military strength, successfully enlists the support of his allies to negotiate fiercely in order to secure a dignified peace. The fact that the former construction is now the prevalent one has probably little to do with President Zelensky’s personal preferences.

My second illustration of similarities and differences vis-à-vis the recent past concerns Europe’s geopolitical position. During the two world wars of the 20th century, Europe was the self-proclaimed center of the world. That is why we call them world wars. About four million of ‘Europe’s’ troops were in fact African and Asian, and many thousands of non-European deaths were the price paid by the inhabitants of remote colonies of the countries involved, sacrificed in a war that did not concern them. Now, however, Europe is but a small corner of the world, which the war in Ukraine will render even smaller. For centuries it was the farthest tip of Eurasia, the huge land mass that stretched from China to the Iberian Peninsula and witnessed the exchange of knowledge, products, scientific innovations and cultures. Much of what was later attributed to European exceptionalism (from the scientific revolution of the 16th century to the industrial revolution in the 19th century) cannot be understood, nor would it have been possible, without those centuries-old exchanges.

The war in Ukraine – especially if it goes on for too long – runs the risk not only of amputating one of Europe’s historic powers (Russia), but also of isolating it from the rest of the world, notably from China. The world is far bigger than what we get to see through European lenses. Seeing through these lenses, Europeans have never felt so strong, so close to their larger partner, so sure of standing on the right side of history, with the whole planet being run by the world of the ‘liberal order,’ a world finally feeling strong enough to go forth sometime soon and conquer – or at least neutralize – China, after having destroyed China’s main partner, Russia. Seeing through non-European lenses, on the other hand, Europe and the US stand haughtily all but alone, probably capable of winning one battle, but on their way to certain defeat in the war of history.

More than half of the world’s population lives in countries that have decided not to join the sanctions against Russia. Many of the UN countries that voted (rightly) against the illegal invasion of Ukraine did so based on their historical experience, which consisted in being invaded, not by Russia, but rather by the US, England, France or Israel. Their decision was not dictated by ignorance, but by precaution. How can they trust countries that created SWIFT – a financial transfer system aimed at protecting economic transactions against political interference – only to end up removing from that system a country on political grounds? Countries that arrogate to themselves the power to confiscate the financial and gold reserves of sovereign nations like Afghanistan, Venezuela and now Russia? Countries that trumpet freedom of expression as a sacrosanct universal value, but resort to censorship the moment they are exposed by it? Countries that are supposed to cherish democracy and yet have no qualms about staging a coup whenever an election goes against their interests? Countries in whose eyes the ‘dictator’ Nicolas Maduro becomes a trading partner overnight, because the circumstances have changed?

The world is no longer a place of innocence – if it ever was.

– – – –

* Boaventura de Sousa Santos is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the School of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal), Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School and Global Legal Scholar at the University of Warwick. He is Director of the Center for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Scientific Coordinator of the Permanent Observatory for Portuguese Justice..