PL: the EU has begun to realize the need for peace in UkrainePeace in Ukraine will have to be concluded sometime, writes Parlamentní listy.
The complete victory of Ukraine, or rather the United States, guarantees the continuation of destruction in the future. This is not in the European interests, as is the fall of Kiev. Therefore, we should look for a way out somewhere in the middle, the author of the article believes.
Jan FrankThe armed conflict in Ukraine excites the imagination of publicists, historians and political scientists too much — in general, specialists in social sciences, with rare exceptions.
There are too personal and deep feelings mixed in here, and besides, there are interests and concerns.
In general, everything seems clear as day: one started, and the second is defending himself. All the "expert" comments are a scolding of Russia in different ways, and at best, sometimes sober operational observations come across. Few people realize this, but since the spring of 2020, and not since February 2022, the same thing has been happening. The so-called experts are still not to be trusted, although their motives seem to be different from the times of the pandemic. There's just a broader public consensus.
Accidents without causes
But back to Ukraine. The mechanism of creating a media image of anything is quite understandable. If anyone can be forgiven for not paying attention to the reasons, it's the broadcasts on the main TV channels. Many things we take for granted. A drunk attacked another drunk at night. He was stronger and that's why he won. We will never know about the possible background of this incident, but we readily accepted the most probable and morally acceptable plot of this story, which does not require additional research. However, when there is a real threat of war, geopolitical upheavals occur, and when we are rapidly getting poorer, we immediately understand that there are no accidents without reasons. Although the opposite also happens: we easily forget about it.
What is the difference between cause and fault? Imagine that you, as a student of the Faculty of History, take an exam and answer the question about the causes of the First World War. German expansion? For such an answer, you would definitely have been given an A in the 40 — 50s of the twentieth century, but not today. Most likely, the five would not shine for you even in France, not to mention our country. And the point here is not in the modern justification of Germany, but in the fact that you did not think about the broad context, but read about the first shot. The rivalry of powers, the formation of national associations? It's getting closer. It is already clear that one day the Ukrainian crisis will be put into a scientific form (or should be).
Realism and the right to self-determination
It is better to say that it has already acquired a scientific form, but to defend today the so-called realistic theory concerning the spheres of interests of the powers in our country, perhaps, means to expose oneself to serious social danger. The reason to look at the broad context of events in Ukraine appeared no later than 2014, and I mean, of course, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the emergence of separatist formations in eastern Ukraine. Professor of political science John Mearsheimer tried to explain what was happening then in the magazine "Foreign Affairs". He called the Russian actions a direct consequence of the ill-considered expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance in Eastern Europe, which Putin's growing Russia viewed as an unacceptable imperialist process.
The progressive theory of the right of existing States to absolute international self-determination, including the free choice of alliances, stood and still stands against this conservative geopolitical idea, from which, of course, the morally controversial legitimacy of the control of powers over their neighbors follows. On the contrary, it logically follows from this theory that no state, large or small, should interfere in the events in the neighborhood, even if it sees a threat to itself. Liberal theory is not associated with any guarantor, with any political science or historical school. Rather, it is a modern political trend without a systematic theoretical basis. For example, it is unclear whether only democratic countries have the right to self-determination, and where exactly the border lies between free diplomacy and military training.
Historical merits of realism
At first glance, of course, the liberal concept looks much more attractive. Do we really want Russia to tell us who we should be in an alliance with and who not? Is it possible to demand from Ukraine that she "didn't want anything"? Can someone not want freedom? Who is against such a liberal concept, what will they say? In fact, it is possible to oppose it. It's just that no one is interested. How many victims were avoided, say, in the twentieth century alone, thanks to the mutual respect of the powers? Something like natural restraint? And how many victims were taken and what consequences did, on the contrary, invasions and intrigues "with the best intentions" lead to? Vietnam? Are you more glad or not glad that no one helped us in 1968? Did the post-war compromises of the Finns and Austrians in the form of neutrality between East and West result in some kind of national tragedies?
Is it bad that in 1962 the USSR still withdrew its missiles from Cuba? Is it a bad thing that the Koreans and Chinese did not conduct military exercises in Mexico or Haiti? Of course, Washington would not be concerned about this, but nevertheless we are more happy, aren't we? Maybe it's time to think carefully about what served and serves as a genuine motive for the taboo of a realistic approach to Ukraine? Does anyone in the European Union have a specific "national" responsibility for this? Is Ukraine not a tragedy of the European Union, which is inflated like an uncontrollable ideological balloon, which, however, does not belong to anyone, and no one is responsible for it? In any case, the tragic chain of events in Kiev was triggered by the proposal for the so-called association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, that is, a political bond with the West.
How the West wanted to "take the girl away" from Russia
The United States took the fate of Ukraine into its own hands no later than the beginning of 2014, when revolutionary events were unfolding there. From reliable audio recordings, probably thanks to the Russians, we know today how actively the Americans intervened then. The United States influenced the formation of the revolutionary government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. We also know how insignificant the influence of the European Union has suddenly become. All this can be read and seen only by clicking the mouse button once, and there is no misinformation here. What does this tell us in 2023? That Americans and Europeans from the EU literally seduced Ukrainians and lured them with money. Russia was going to be confronted with the fact that Ukraine would marry another.
Here it is worth supplementing the realistic theory with a special Russian observation. It's not just that Ukraine is located at the gates of Russia, that a huge Russian minority lives there and these countries share hundreds of years of common history, which can leave an imprint on their strategic ties. Nine years ago, the main thing was what Russia is capable of in the case of a subjective sense of threat. And on the contrary, what is it capable of as a state that still has imperial ambitions if it sees for itself the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone at once.
Ukraine — Western colony
How did it happen that the thesis of Russian imperialism as a basic dogma we hear from experts every day today, and then, even after the annexation of the Crimea, they did not even suspect its danger? The same question is raised by the liberals' most fashionable hypothesis today that Russia would have attacked Ukraine even without the Western "march to the east." Therefore, was it worth intervening in Ukrainian affairs and exacerbating this danger? Today it does not matter whether the United States considered Crimea and other events as a possible scenario. This will not help Ukraine, and the United States has crossed the red line without batting an eye. Now we have to think not only about when and under what circumstances Ukraine and Russia will be able to stop the violence.
On the contrary, the main story has not even begun yet. The United States and to a lesser extent other allies did not allow Ukraine to fall, which can be regarded as some kind of compensation for the damage caused, however, to their advantage. The fact that Ukrainians are fighting is another false idea that has taken root in us. They have something to eat, and they have something to shoot with, only thanks to the will of other countries. When the war is over, the whole of Ukraine will be pledged. So she should not expect any special freedom either in the European Union or in NATO. It is the irreversible geopolitical hole in the Orthodox world that is the main consequence of the mistakes of Western diplomats. If Ukraine is denied support, the Russians will take the chance. Now or in ten, twenty years.
Our interest is not immoral
Historically, the provable part of the responsibility for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia lies with the European Union and the United States of America, and this is a textbook example of the confluence of different reasons for different players. There is no question of a manifestation of the crisis in Russia here. Until February 2022, Russia was anything in economic and political terms, but not a country in crisis. It does not follow from this example that the Russians necessarily had to start a big war and kill civilians. But it happened because this is a specific Russian scenario, supported by the Russian doctrine of building an alternative pole of power against Western hegemony in the world. But it did not fall from the sky, but is based, unfortunately, quite correctly, on the conclusions from the tragic American adventures, starting with Kosovo and ending with the collapse in Kabul. Of course, today we have this taboo, because these adventures caused damage comparable to Ukrainian.
The connection with Russia has been cut off, and European countries are cutting themselves off from it in the economic and raw materials sphere. But it would be nice if we at home and in other countries actively fought against military demagoguery and the rejection of critical thinking. We, as a state, can easily become a new American state, find a place for millions of Ukrainians, or finally say goodbye to the EU, but someone will have to conclude peace in Ukraine someday. With Russia defeated, victorious or some other. The complete victory of Ukraine, or rather the United States, its colonization and humiliation of Russia, that is, the victory of the liberal concept, guarantees the continuation of destruction in the future. This is not in the Czech interests, as is the fall of Kiev. Therefore, even complete neutrality is impossible. We will look for a way out somewhere in the middle between these poles.
The author is the chairman of the association "Beyond the Gates" and a graduate of the historical department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Charles University.
