Ukraine: the problem is not only what, but what

The situation is really unusual, although predictable. Autocrats tend to understand each other, and Trump and Putin are. Trump's contempt for Europe and Ukraine, leaving them out of negotiations with Russia, should not surprise us so much, since Trump is not a politician guided by intelligence (what little he has is infantilized), but by what he considers his particular interests, which he extrapolates to them, turning them into "homeland". His peace plan is to leave things as they are, that is, to let Russia keep the conquered territory, and Ukraine without part of what was its state territory.

The reaction of most European countries, apart from Ukraine, is naturally one of surprise at being left out of this Trumpist and Putinist "peace plan". For Trump, weakening Europe is beneficial, and his contempt for everything multilateral naturally involves contempt for an institution like the European Union, which he perceives as part of the old normative order that he wants to destroy. Ukraine, although not yet in the European Union, can be broken up if Russia, which is a power with which the United States wants to have good relations, wants to do so. And so the paradox would arise that even if NATO's transatlanticism were broken up, since the United States would go it alone, Washington-Moscow relations could go smoothly. The other paradox is that at the same time, the European countries in NATO react prematurely and impulsively, believing that by significantly increasing their military spending they will be safe. The question is: from whom and from what? Does it really think that Russia wants to invade Europe? Is it reasonable to think that it wants to annex the Baltic countries, which do belong to NATO? Europe realises that if it reacts in this way to Russia and the United States understanding each other on various international issues, will the concept of shared security based on global disarmament have gone down the drain? If things have not gone well and it is impossible to win the war in Ukraine, after – most likely – more than 100,000 dead and 120 billion euros invested in this battle, would it not be desirable to try to return to the starting point before the war, when the NATO coordination committee with Russia functioned reasonably and Europe did not reason and Europe did not reason?

The situation in Ukraine has been at a standstill for about two years, and some voices, including my own, have been saying for many months that this war has lost all meaning, and that it has become a real slaughter and nothing more. The desire to continue trench warfare is filicide, not an act of heroism. Negotiations were necessary in a realistic way, and that meant ceding Russophile territory to Russia in exchange for ending the war and, from there, seeing if a European security could be built again that did not exclude Russia, which is not easy, but necessary. What I am saying sounds like a sin, and I will undoubtedly be heavily criticised, but I prefer the lives of young people to their absurd and useless martyrdom. And I am talking about tens of thousands, not just a few. The third paradox, therefore, is that this probable scenario of ending the war will not come from a European desire to continue fighting to win it, but from an understanding between the leaders of two great powers, the "sheriffs" of the world, who will surely be joined by Xi Jinping, and who will form an authoritarian trio at odds.

I think that, as Europeans, we are paying the price for a certain blindness in analysing conflicts and seeing their roots. I also fear that we are sowing the seeds of new disagreements, by making wrong decisions and for the enjoyment of the military-industrial complex, which rubs its hands at the sight of so much militaristic impetus. Let us not forget, finally, that doubling or tripling military spending will come at the expense of reducing social spending, which is already insufficient, and this inadequacy is one of the causes of the rise of populism and disillusionment with conventional politics. Beware, then, of the new sheriffs, because they are heading straight for us.