Avoid war with Russia: Hobbesian empathy

Practically no one discusses the positive effects the EU has had on the development of European societies over the last seventy years. In addition to the advantages in socio-economic matters –common economic space and currency, development, social rights, etc.–, it is a period of stability framed by the absence of internal wars between member states. It is a positive outcome arising from the nefarious wartime experience of the Second World War.Today this European internal peace is not in danger. The same cannot be said, however, for the international situation in which the EU (and NATO) states are involved. As things stand, it is not out of the question that a war with Russia could occur in the short term. This would represent an irresponsible stupidity, as war interests neither of the two potential sides. Let's take it step by step.1. Western discourses on “European security” are neither analyzed nor conducted in parallel with the objectives of Russian security. The lack of Hobbesian empathy – analyzing the world of international relations from the perspective of “the other” – tends to erode the possibilities of resolving conflicts through diplomatic means. The security sought is never only one's own.2. It is partly demagogic to present Russia as the "aggressor" state, silencing NATO's prior expansionist policy towards Eastern Europe. An expansion that violated the previous agreements (Gorbachev) that made possible – with Russia's acceptance – the unification of Germany in 1990 after the collapse of the Soviet regime. As I have said on occasion, the subsequent will of the USA (NATO) to win the post-war period after winning the Cold War is at the origin of the current problems.3. As highlighted by the North American academic Jeffrey Sachs, European states are not reliable actors when it comes to respecting international agreements: they have constantly violated them. A small list: the aforementioned expansion of NATO; the disregard for Russia's collaboration proposals in the early years of the 21st century (summits of Munich and Bucharest), which led to the predictable invasion of Crimea, a Russian territory since the end of the 18th century, in 2014; the recognized European deception (ratified by Merkel) of the Minsk II agreements (2015) despite the collaboration of France and Germany. It does not seem that the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) was precisely a surprise. The Western boycott (USA, United Kingdom) of the Istanbul agreement of 2022 goes in the same direction.4. Wars have changed. The economic costs of attack missions are lower than the costs of a defensive nature. The combination of drones, missiles, and the growing strategic weight of artificial intelligence are a further factor of instability, as well as possible errors and tactical decisions without human control. Wars are currently easier to start and harder to end.5. Germany and Japan, the two main defeated powers in World War II, are beginning to be immersed in a program of strong militarization. Defense (or war) budgets of these two states are expected to increase significantly in the next decade. Germany's case, seen from Russia, can only be read as a real threat. It was the Germans who invaded Russia just a few decades ago. Furthermore, a (US) general and an (Lithuanian) Foreign Minister of NATO have threatened to attack Kaliningrad, a Russian settlement in the Baltic. An example of irresponsible irrationality.

6. It is well understood that countries like the Baltic states or Poland encourage a policy of military deterrence. However, from the Russian security perspective, the current actions of the NATO-EU tandem can only be seen as a threat. In this sense, I believe that the EU is making a strategic mistake if what it wants to avoid is a military confrontation. Unconditionally supporting the Ukrainian government encourages an escalation that brings the probability of war closer to Europe and distances the possibility of a negotiated solution agreed upon in realistic terms of stability.I write unconditionally because I believe it is both convenient and possible to push Ukraine towards the diplomatic establishment of a framework of stability for future relations between this country, Russia and the EU. The development of the aforementioned Hobbesian empathy between the conflicting parties is necessary; to see it through the eyes of the other party. Avoiding a war suits everyone.In order for both sides of the conflict to be able to express partial victories, it would be necessary to ensure and accelerate Ukraine's entry into the EU, with the understanding that it would explicitly renounce integration into NATO. While Crimea is part of Russia, Donbas can be regulated based on very broad autonomy legitimized by Russia, Ukraine, and international forces.Finally, I believe that, in general, the EU should approach Russia, as the latter proposed only two decades ago. There are clear possibilities of success in the economic, political, strategic, and cultural spheres. We still have time.Inverting the well-known maxim of the Roman historian Flavius Renatus Vegetius, we can say: “If you want peace, prepare for war””.