Russian President Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly the most important figure, but he is not, as many would like, solely responsible for a war that has brought only destruction and death to the country he illegally invaded last February.
And one day the court of history will try him for it because no international criminal court can be expected to do that unless there is a revolution in the Kremlin.
Presidents of the United States will never have to be held accountable for their equally illegal wars against other countries under any pretext, but just mentioning this possibility seems taboo among us.
But does it justify everything, even to accept Putin’s unquestioned and direct responsibility in this brutal war, like all wars, and forget, as many do, the years of war waged by Kiev’s military forces against Russian-speaking separatists in eastern Ukraine? The sacrifice of tens of thousands of innocents at the altar of the homeland?
The court of history will certainly not be limited to prosecuting not only the ruthless Russian autocrat, but also all political leaders who did little or nothing while they could have avoided it.
I’m not just talking about the “hawks” in Washington, mostly from the Democratic Party, who insist on getting Ukraine into NATO one day, without even taking into account Moscow’s asserted security interests. advice from many of their diplomats.
I’m also talking about European governments that don’t know how or are unable to apply enough pressure on the Kyiv government to accept the so-called Minsk agreements, which they have patiently negotiated with Russia and Ukraine.
One day the whole truth of what happened will be known: for example, the role of some high-ranking US officials in the so-called Euromaidan popular revolution, which was seen as a coup against the elected president at the ballot box in Moscow.
So why did diplomacy fail so miserably? Why did the Europeans allow themselves to be persuaded by the government in Washington and, let’s not forget, by the London government then headed by Boris Johnson?
And after all, after getting to this point, should the war end with an indisputable military victory for one of the sides, something that many already consider impossible? Should any negotiations, any compromise, be ignored while Putin is in power?
Before the occupation, the autonomy of the Russian-dominated regions was an acceptable way out for both sides, but today only the partition of Ukraine seems possible. Or the continuation of war until a country that does not deserve this fate is completely destroyed.
But is Putin’s desire for the partition of Ukraine acceptable to President Zelensky? Wouldn’t he be in danger? On the other hand, how can the life of Putin, who one day have to leave all Ukrainian lands, be endangered?
And above all, was it worth so much destruction and so much death to achieve something that could and should have been achieved peacefully through diplomacy and patient negotiation from the very beginning?
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.