From our correspondent
How – tRevisit this first year of the war: the Western Front held out and remained united in support of the Ukrainians; Over the months, the conflict has turned from a swift blitzkrieg, which Vladimir Putin originally dreamed of, into a protracted war of attrition. Ukrainian identity was not shaped by Russian aggression, but was held back precisely because it was already firmly on its feet and ready to fight to defend itself. Volodymyr Zelensky did nothing but faithfully interpret the widespread will of resistance of his people, as a fine actor he managed to tell Ukrainian sentiments, which is the reason for his immense popularity. These are some of the main arguments for “Manifesto for Sustainable Peace” That 63-year-old historian Jaroslav Hritsakprofessor at Lviv University and author of “History of Ukraine” soon to be published in Italy by Il Mulino, will present on March 4 with other intellectuals from his country driven by the common concern that “the time is now needed to side with Putin and achieve a relatively quick military victory” to try impose a lasting peace.
Who collapses first?
“Contrary to the convictions formed by Putin in recent years and the expectations of Eurosceptics, the West has strengthened itself with war, NATO has re-emerged strong and united. Putin had deluded himself that he could negotiate separately with Berlin, Rome, Paris, Washington or London, thinking that each would give priority to its own interests, but he found himself surprised by their strong and unanimous reaction when they condemned aggression in chorus. basically, The war recreated the WestÂ » explains Hrytsak. The bad news, however, is that the dynamics of the conflict have now changed. to”The battles are reminiscent of the battles of the First World War. There are certainly technological aspects, but at its core it is a conventional war, with two more or less equal enemies in a war of positions. In the summer of 1917, it was estimated that the Allied forces would reach Berlin in 70 years. Last May, London strategists estimated it If the Russians continue at the current pace, they could take Kiev perhaps in 2051For”. The way out? • The collapse of one of the two sides. Putin is aware of this, and for this reason he relies on the time factor, and hopes that Western countries will sooner or later give up on Kiev ».
But it is still very difficult to predict the collapse. No one expected the collapse of the tsarist regime in 1917 or the German regime a year later or even the Soviet regime more than thirty years ago, certainly not in the timing or the manner. Translated into contemporary terms, Ukraine must do everything to achieve victory by 2023. “Ukraine is bleeding, it must end the war, but not at the expense of a territorial settlement, it must regain its territories up to the 1991 borders, including Donbass and Crimea. Otherwise, the danger is that the peace is nothing but an armistice that would give Putin time to reorganize the army Soon, he will come back to attack stronger than before. We risk becoming a new Chechnya. After the massacres of Bucha and Irpin, after very serious Russian violence, there is no Ukrainian more willing to make territorial concessions ».
The danger of Ukrainian collapse is certainly not excluded: “possible but in the distant moment”, for the time being the arrival of Western weapons remains unchanged and, above all, the moral determination of the Ukrainian population to fight has not been cracked at all. The war of attrition is a struggle between the resources of the two sides. Do not forget that the gross national product of Russia does not exceed the gross domestic product of Spain, while the economies of our allies are infinitely stronger. There is likely to be the collapse of Russia and the ouster of Putin. What about the possibility of a more fanatical dictator emerging at the helm of Moscow? Â «I don’t think so, just as I don’t think an opponent of the Democratic Front likes it Alexei Navalny. Instead, I think of a minor figure among the current leaders in the Kremlin who is destined to lead the transition, similar to what happened in 1991 ».
Lies about NATO
But what do you answer to those in Europe, and especially in Italy, who claim that NATO is really responsible for the Russian offensive, which did not honor the post-Soviet agreements and expanded eastward? Nonsense and void. At the time of the Soviet disintegration, Moscow’s leaders agreed to allow Ukraine independence, guided by the conviction that it would then be the Ukrainians themselves who would ask on their knees to return to Mother Russia. Putin decided to invade us when he realized that we wanted to stay in a free Europe. As for NATO, there is neither a signed document nor an official agreement between the two parties indicating any commitment in this sense. Even the memoirs of Gorbachev’s translator never mention this. Moreover, the principle is sacred self-determination of peoples. After the end of the USSR, it was our population who in droves asked NATO to free them from the threat of Moscow. From the Baltics to Poland and Ukraine, we knew that the Russians would soon return to try to occupy us, and this should be enough to understand our reasons, confirmed by the tragic attack a year ago.
“Freelance social media evangelist. Organizer. Certified student. Music maven.”