So far, Russia has had everything go wrong. Vladimir Putin, with his illegal and criminal invasion, had several goals. None have been fulfilled.
In the military field, what was going to be a very quick and short “special operation” has become a frozen war that has revealed that the Russian armed forces suffer from enormous deficiencies, including terrible logistical and material planning. of communications. It is true that Putin does not mind continuing to send tens of thousands of his young people to the front – literally, cannon fodder – to support and fight on the different open fronts. The cost in human, material and image terms is brutal.
In the political arena, the goal of overthrowing the Ukrainian government and replacing it with a puppet government has also not been achieved. Quite the opposite. The heroic reaction of the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the vast majority of the armed forces and the population has completely upset Putin’s plans. At the same time, he has reinvigorated the Ukrainian national consciousness – with an anti-Russian component that will last for decades – totally focused on defending its sovereignty, its independence and its freedom. Certainly, the cost is immense and devastating, in human terms (military and civilian casualties, including heinous war crimes and millions of displaced persons and refugees) and in transport and energy infrastructures.
The reconstruction of the country will cost a lot, and there the European Union is fundamental. This opens a strong moral dilemma. The West supports in arms, financial resources or military and technological intelligence. It is estimated that, up to now, these contributions already exceed the figure of 150,000 million dollars. But the death, the blood and the devastation are brought exclusively by the Ukrainians, who fight for their country, but also for the values that make up liberal democracies. Therefore, leaving Ukraine to its own devices – due to “weariness”, weakening of commitment and internal divisions – is also immoral behaviour.
“The Baltic has become a western sea and has left Russia in a very delicate situation”
Strategically, NATO, the Atlantic link and the EU itself have emerged reinforced in their unity, contrary to what the Kremlin expected and many of us feared. From the request for membership in the Alliance of Sweden and Finland – the Baltic has become a western sea and has left Russia in a very delicate situation – to the Zeitenwende of Germany, Russia’s geopolitical weight has been greatly weakened. In addition, she has shown the real limits of “no limits” friendship with China. China reaps some short-term gains, such as diverting US attention away from the Indo-Pacific and, in particular, from the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. But Beijing continues to need the West and the invasion comes to complicate everything, deepening the decoupling and cutting some vital global value chains. In any case, Russia is an increasingly dependent and vassal state of China, something that, historically, Moscow has tried to avoid.
Finally, economically, although the growing strategic independence of the so-called Global South has mitigated its effects, Western sanctions are taking their toll and their consequences will be seen on the already very weak Russian economy. It is Of course, the West and especially Europe also suffer the consequences, especially those derived from having implemented a very vulnerable energy policy from the conviction that economic interdependence removed the possibility of conflict. Big mistake, which is being corrected, but at a substantial cost.
The invasion has crudely shown that Russia does not accept the liberal international order – Putin already anticipated this in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference – and that its paradigm of international relations is Yalta, where the great powers “divided” the world. world by areas of influence, and not Helsinki, with the creation of the OSCE. That means that the use of force to achieve geopolitical objectives is legitimate and that the flagrant violation of International Law does not matter. Russia has flouted all the agreements signed in pursuit of a more secure world, from the UN Charter to the Budapest Memorandum and the founding Act of the OSCE itself. We return to the law of the jungle, where what counts is brute force.
«The sanctions against Russia have not been assumed by any Asian country (except Japan, South Korea or Australia) or Africa or Latin America. A resounding failure »
But not all the strategic consequences are negative for the Kremlin and, in general, for all those who, like China, want to weaken the West and question US hegemony. The positions of the Global South show that the West (including the EU) is failing to incorporate it into the defense of our values. Countries like India, Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, the Arab countries, as well as Africa and Latin America go their own way and exclusively serve their national interests. There are many reasons (colonial history, its economic interests, double standards…), but we have to “rethink” that clear effect, which comes from behind, but which has now manifested itself in all its harshness in the implementation of sanctions. They have not been assumed by any Asian country (except Japan, South Korea or Australia) or Africa or Latin America. A resounding failure of our foreign policies from which some painful lesson must be drawn.
And from now on, what? Clearly Russia must not win (as French President Emmanuel Macron says). But some (the former “satellite” countries of the extinct Soviet Union) add that “we must lose the fear of defeating Russia.” The difference may seem nuanced, but it is substantial. And now there are no nuances. We must continue to support Ukraine massively, knowing that a ceasefire is not possible, unless Ukraine accepts it, something that will not happen because it would imply crystallizing the occupation of part of its territory. Peace must be based on justice and respect for International Law. If not, it will be a fragile and fictitious peace. The West therefore has an enormous responsibility. You cannot stand by and base everything on what Ukraine decides. But it will never be able to impose unacceptable conditions for the Ukrainians. That would undoubtedly mean a resurgence of the conflict in the short or medium term. The question of autonomy, under Ukrainian sovereignty, of Donbas – new Minsk Agreements that, due to European pressure, raised a de facto unacceptable situation and the legitimization of the use of force – or the negotiation of a specific status for Crimea alone they would be possible if Russia withdraws from the occupied territories and Ukraine is guaranteed its security and territorial integrity, thanks to deterrence and unwavering support from the West.
Only from then on will it be possible to consider, in the future, the incorporation of Russia into a new security architecture in Europe. In the meantime, we must assume that the war is going on for a long time, with its vicissitudes at the front and a terrible wear and tear on the parties. But freedom cannot be negotiated. Russia, but also some in the West, have to understand this.
The entry One year later, are there exit scenarios? It was first published in Foreign Policy.
