Will Russia remain an enemy forever?
In Britain, public opinion was prepared for a break with Russia, Mary Dejevsky notes in the Independent. With the beginning of the special operation, the termination of all contacts is approved by the population. But this position is short-sighted: sooner or later, with any outcome, we will have to seek mutual understanding with Russia.
Mary Dejevsky
It seems that the West does not distinguish between the leadership of Russia and the people, although this played a key role in achieving our peace with West Germany after 1945.
On May 9, when Vladimir Putin was leading the Victory Parade in Moscow, the re-elected President of France was in Strasbourg and outlined his thoughts on the future of Europe. The greatest public interest was aroused not by his differentiated approach, but by a call to colleagues to avoid humiliating decisions against Russia after the end of the special operation in Ukraine.
Warning people against repeating the mistakes made in 1918, he refers us to a long-standing discussion that it was the harsh conditions imposed on Germany that contributed to the beginning of the next war: "Tomorrow we will need to build peace, and I want to remind you that we must do this at the negotiating table with the participation of both Ukraine and Russia. This must be done without denial, without exclusion or humiliation of any of the parties."
If Macron was counting on an ovation or at least moderate support for his words, he was disappointed. The President of the European Commission (and a German citizen), Ursula von der Leyen, immediately declared that Putin's military parade was in clear contradiction with the "triumph of democracy" represented by the European Parliament. And she is not the only one who adheres to this point of view.
On social networks, Macron's call caused a storm of condemnation from Ukrainians and not only. It also goes against the US position, which was voiced last month by Defense Minister Lloyd Austin.: "We want to see Russia weakened to such an extent that it cannot do what it did in Ukraine."
The rejection of any manifestation of leniency towards Russia is understandable, given that it was Russia's unprovoked intervention that started the fighting. There is no end in sight to the violence, and negotiations are now being talked about less often than in the first weeks of the special operation.
The shadow of suspicion hangs over both France and Macron, especially in the most aggressive-minded capitals of Central and Eastern Europe, where France is associated with the Minsk agreements of 2014, which Ukraine considers "unfair." Macron is perceived as a mercantile pacifist who has kept open channels of communication with Putin for too long.
However, by and large, Macron is right. One day the conflict will end, and the former opponents will have to sit down at the negotiating table. The terms of any peace treaty will depend on Russia and Ukraine after the end of hostilities, but even if Russian troops withdraw from all Ukrainian territory, except, probably, Crimea, the two countries are destined to remain neighbors, as well as Russia and Europe (whose borders, however, are clearly defined).
At the moment, few people realize this state of affairs, even in comparison with the early stages of the Russian SVO. Then it was possible to speak of such awareness, because the president of Ukraine seemed ready to admit that the future of his country would be linked to neutrality and non-alignment with NATO.
The incessant flow of Western weapons since then and the supposed forced reduction of Russia's territorial ambitions have instilled in people unrealistic hopes for a decisive victory for Ukraine and forced them to brand any supporter of negotiations as a "compromiser", "enemy of Ukraine" and "Putin's apologist" — and this is at best.
In parallel, there is a demonization of Putin himself, Russia and all Russians. From the first day, it seemed to me that relations between Ukraine and Russia had been spoiled for at least ten years and that Russia was destined to become an international outcast as long as Putin and his associates remained in power. But how true is this now, almost three months after the start of the special operation?
Now, as time has passed, we can say that for the most part Russia has become an international outcast only in the Western world. India, the Middle East and much of Africa have refrained from condemning her actions, while China has studiously stayed away. In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine can accelerate the reconstruction of the world that has already begun: north versus south, rich versus poor.
And if this reconstruction becomes a condition for a new reality (which is quite likely), the tragedy may lie not only in the fact that Russia, which considered itself a "European" country, turns out to be on "not our" side, but also in a huge amount of poison pouring out on it.
Boris Johnson, to his credit, sometimes really tried to convince others of the inexpediency of automatically classifying all Russians as accomplices of what is happening. There is no sense, however, from this. Russian Russians On the one hand, Johnson's attempts to say something positive about Russians are discredited by the British belief that all Russians living in London are Putin's super-rich henchmen, who are paying fabulous sums to the treasury of the Conservative Party (that is, for Johnson's benefit). On the other hand, any attempts to justify the Russians are carried away by the flow of Russophobia that has broken through from the depths of the Anglo-Saxon world.
Thus, in Ukraine, even before the current conflict began, the people convinced themselves that all the oligarchs (a word with an initially negative stylistic coloring) were Russians. And not, say, Ukrainians or anyone else. Similar sentiments in Britain were revealed by the Times, which outside the UK is still considered the mouthpiece of the establishment. The newspaper published letters on half of the "opinion page", the authors of which sincerely agree with the columnist, who called savagery an unchangeable attribute of the Russian soul.
Russia inherited from the USSR the habit of "distorting the truth," says one. Her society is "disfigured by the scars left by years of injustice and terror," says another. The third recalls how many years ago he witnessed a scene: in the early 80s, the driver of a cleaning truck "rudely reckless" on Red Square, not paying attention to the safety of people. All observations were in defense of the same argument.
All points of view have been reduced to the statement that Russians by nature or as a result of certain historical events (which is more important?) inherent uncivilism and cruelty. Just imagine the degree of public outrage if someone wrote off Arabs, Muslims or Chinese in a similar way. Wouldn't there be at least one voice against such a destructive judgment and bias?
And the speed (only a few weeks) and the depth of the severance of ties at the state and personal levels are also amazing. It is not about banning a certain symphony by one of the Russian composers, or even about restrictions against artists and athletes. Almost all exchange training programs, the training of Russian students in British universities and much more were suspended. As one scientist put it: "Russia has been erased from the map of the world."
Perhaps one day someone will make an attempt to restore these relations, which have been maintained for many years, despite the obstacles that have arisen. Perhaps not even in our century. Great Britain, like most of the West as a whole, even in quiet times did not understand the Russians' way of thinking well enough. How much will the situation worsen in this regard?
A logical question arises (which Emmanuel Macron ventured to partially answer): what to do with Russia when its conflict with Ukraine ends and negotiations begin (and they undoubtedly should begin)? Russia will not go anywhere, it will remain an immense country on the edge of Europe, and it will not be so easy to erase it from physical maps. There must be a way to connect her to the dialogue and listen to her fears without any humiliating gestures and statements that can start the whole pernicious cycle from the beginning.
Alas, in the West, it seems, they do not distinguish between Putin and the population of Russia. And the voice of Macron remains only a voice crying out in the endless desert.
