The chronologization of the war in Ukraine may begin to distract Western public opinion as everyday economic problems become more pressing. As time passes and the military situation stabilizes, we are less and less affected by the massive destruction of Ukrainian cities featured on television news. Man is a creature accustomed to everything, including the constant vision of pain and death; and not just to those far away, as the pandemic has taught us more than it has taught us. Repeated contemplation of fear dulls sensitivity, as in the images of starving children covered in flies, of exhausted migrants rescued from boats (who later became beggars in our cities), survivors of natural disasters losing everything and crying. inconsolably…
With regard to Ukraine, we know that the far left opposed sending military aid to Kiev with hypocritical pacifist aspirations trying to hide old Muscovite love (and Cold War anti-American grudge). Meanwhile, the same left regrets retrospectively and rightfully that Britain and France remained passive in the face of the overwhelming support and requests for assistance made by the Government of the Second Spanish Republic after the outbreak of the civil war. provided by Germany and Italy alongside the rebels. It was argued at the time that a new world conflict should be avoided at all costs and certain red lines should not be crossed. Well then: because the passivity of the Western democracies was interpreted by Hitler as weakness, war could not be avoided. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, an advocate of appeasement and the disgraceful 1938 Munich Agreement that gave the German-speaking region of Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich, understood this late. If we look at the softness and inconsistency shown by the West in the face of the Russian occupation in 2014, the historical parallelism is obvious in the face of the Russian occupation of Crimea and part of the Donbas, which are mostly Russian-speaking Ukrainian lands.
As for the most conservative right in Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, the Scandinavian countries, etc., in their prudent positions, nationalist and authoritarian affinity for Putin outweighs concern for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In turn, the government of Chancellor Schultz is reluctantly cooperating in the military aid program for Kiev: Germany lived very well on cheap Russian gas, mediated by the cynical lobbyist Gerhard Schroeder! And President Macron is somewhat vague, stating that since the beginning of the war he wanted Ukraine’s victory “without crushing Moscow”: what a tender heart in the face of the attacking plant predator! Therefore, everything is in the air today, and I think that it will happen after the announced Ukrainian counteroffensive that we cannot expect a complete reversal of the military situation.
At present, all these months after the Russian invasion, there is little reason to be optimistic. Nor is it the result of China’s new role in the diplomatic field, which should be interpreted more as a hegemonic position on the world stage than for peace. Will China succeed in forcing Moscow to withdraw to its pre-2022 occupation borders and somehow return to the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements? Would Ukraine be interested in such a solution? Would countries on the Euro-Atlantic axis accept this? Minsk I and Minsk II allowed Ukraine to rearm in order to later liberate areas that Kiev was unable to liberate at the time, in Angela Merkel’s cunning and self-righteous words. But comparing Minsk to the Munich Agreement and thus defending Chamberlain’s decision, as the former chancellor did, seems arbitrary and arrogant.
In any case, Western support for Ukraine must continue as long as the Ukrainians decide to continue the war. It’s not just a matter of morality, it’s also a matter of preventing the Kremlin’s predictable next domino move: the invasion of the Baltics. This can take us back to September 1939.