After about three months of an undeclared war by Russia against the people and government of Ukraine, it is increasingly evident that a return to the positions of the belligerent forces before the start of hostilities on 24 February would be a decisive step towards achieve a just and necessary peace in eastern Europe.
In contrast to other Russian military campaigns in Georgia, Crimea or Syria, on this occasion it is clear that there was no immediate political-military overthrow and surrender of the Kiev government. Nor was there a “liberation” of the neighbor – with the possible exceptions of what was observed in certain territories in the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. In general, the Ukrainians took the decisive decision to fight for the sovereignty and independence of their country, and to try to expel the invading forces.
Evidently, the determination to resist foreign aggression has represented very high human and material costs for both.
On the Ukrainian side, in the face of imposed aggression and the pre-existing imbalance of forces, a fundamentally defensive strategy was implemented. So far, this has made it possible to expel Russian units north of the capital and Kharkiv. Also, even after the recent seizure of the city of Mariupol by Russian forces, a certain stabilization of the theaters of military operations in the east and south of the country can be seen.
Unfortunately, in the interlude, the defenders of their country had to live with some cases of atrocities and war crimes, with the destruction of economic and social infrastructure, millions of displaced people and refugees, and enormous psychological suffering, especially among non-combatants – women. , children and the elderly.
Also, according to credible sources, the Russian military campaign has resulted in financial costs of over 300 billion dollars and the disruption of Ukraine’s economic system. In short, it has been a painful collective experience for an internationally recognized state.
In the midst of this bilateral Russian-Ukrainian conflict, there has been a vigorous reaction from the international community since February. In general, most state and non-state actors spoke out in favor of international law and Kiev’s claims. This was quite clear in some decisions of the United Nations system.
On the other hand, there was skepticism and revulsion against the aggression promoted by the Moscow government and its closest allies – including the Belarusian government and pro-Russian separatist forces. It should be noted that, with few and sometimes paradoxical exceptions, this pattern of conduct and international identity essentially favorable to Kiev has been replicated, both in most Latin American and Caribbean countries and in the Global South.
At the same time, and perhaps as an unplanned or unintended consequence, the military campaign of Russian forces has provoked reactions in many other capitals on the planet. Good offices were offered by numerous international actors in order to achieve a peaceful exit from the crisis.
In addition, there was a virtual “definlandization” of Finland and Sweden, the rearmament of Germany and other countries, the recomposition of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the growing Russian-American tensions.
Furthermore, it was possible to identify elective affinities and understanding with the decision of Vladimir Putin’s government in Beijing, and the imposition of heavy economic sanctions – both commercial and financial and communicational – on Russia.
Last but not least, there were strong cultural and religious differences between Slavic leaders, the interruption of intercivilizational dialogue and a virtual suspension of scientific, technical and sports cooperation mainly with respect to the aggressor forces.
From the perspective of studies and research in international security and contemporary strategic issues, such events suggest the recomposition of the international system.
In academic terms, the Ukrainian War even generated a significant impact, especially regarding the development of the main theories of International Relations, with emphasis on neorealism, analytical liberalism, constructivism, among others. Consequently, numerous analysts have even claimed that it is the most important event since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and subsequent events.
Looking in retrospect at the group of Latin American countries, which in their experience have not lacked cases of resistance and opposition to imperialist onslaughts fundamentally similar to those currently observed in Eastern Europe, the ideal would be a negotiated exit from the conflict. That would be the ultimate goal of UN, Vatican, Turkey, Israel and other countries, institutions and agents with ties and interests in the conflict.
Far from accepting a humiliating surrender and submission of Ukraine to Moscow’s designs, such a negotiation must preserve the sovereignty, security, freedom and territorial integrity of the parties. The return to the status quo ante bellum situation would be a decisive step in the resolution of this atrocious, outdated and spurious conflict, unless there is a better interpretation.
An effort to address the ethno-political claims of pro-Russian groups could eventually be undertaken, including with increasing autonomy within the Ukrainian state. The Crimea issue could be resolved, for example, through an exchange of territories – instead of simply annexing the peninsula and its exclusive economic zone to the Russian Federation. And equivalent, reciprocal and mutually acceptable international security guarantees could be exchanged between the governments in question.
It remains to be seen who will pay the bill for the mass and senseless destruction of the Ukrainian economy, for the enormous psychosocial suffering imposed on its population and for the rearrangements generated in the regional and global international order.
