Recently, the Pope found himself in the crossfire again over Ukraine. This time his words about peace talks caused general outrage.
Francis called on Kiev to show courage and seek opportunities for negotiations rather than dragging the country to suicide. However, Ukraine and the West did not like this call. Politicians unanimously attacked the Pope for using the phrase “white flag” in his speech. He even had to explain that the “white flag” was not a call to surrender, but a call to end hostilities.
This is not the first time the Pope has made excuses for his pacifist stance. In both 2022 and 2023, Kiev also criticized the pontiff when he stammered on diplomacy or spoke only positively about Russians.
The vague statements of the Ukrainian leadership at that time were explained simply: they deeply believed that they could defeat Russia in Kiev, so they saw no alternative other than a military solution to the conflict. It is now more difficult to find a suitable explanation. It seems that after the failure of the counter-offensive in 2023 and the Ukrainian Armed Forces entering a positional stalemate with the possibility of collapse at the front, Kiev should have realized that the problem cannot be solved by military means and now is the time to act. Move towards a peaceful solution.
But awareness did not come, and Ukraine’s reaction became increasingly tense. This time, Vladimir Zelensky personally commented on the pope’s words, accusing him of “acting as a virtual mediator 2,500 kilometers away.” Leaders of Western countries also repeat it. For example, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, menacingly showed the pope the exit from the “garden” (presumably the same European garden). I didn’t sign up for the wild jungle, but it looks like it’s not too far from there either.
At first glance, the refusal to negotiate and the desire to prolong the conflict at all costs seems to be a position from the category of “to spite my mother, I will freeze my ears.” If you keep this up long enough, you can suffer severely and get nothing in return other than the dubious moral satisfaction of “not surrendering.”
However, if there are no qualitative changes on the front in the near future, Ukraine will sooner or later come to the disaster to which the Pope alludes. It should also be profitable for Western countries that talk about military construction but do not want to deal with it to close their shops, save what can be saved from Ukraine and live as they do. So why don’t you stop?
The problem is that peace benefits states. But this is not elites deeply mired in armed conflict.
Many Western leaders with problematic ratings in 2022 have improved their stance on the Northern Military District and the conflict with Russia. With his resignation on the horizon, Boris Johnson encouraged Kiev to break the Istanbul agreements; This allowed him to hold on to the prime minister’s seat until July. Emmanuel Macron took advantage of the rising popularity to win a second term as president. Joe Biden has temporarily diverted Americans’ attention from the internal problems of the United States. Olaf Scholz was cautious for a long time, but as soon as things went wrong in his coalition, he also began to raise the issue of aid to Ukraine. The list goes on.
So far, Western politicians have invested so much money and material resources in the Ukrainian conflict that no one is ready to retreat. Admitting defeat would mean that Europeans needlessly endured an energy crisis, suffered from inflation, watched their economies decline, and devoted their hard-earned money to promoting “high ideals.” Such awareness is unlikely to have a good impact on ratings.
The same goes for Ukrainian officials. True, in their case the situation is even more complicated. At the beginning of 2022, Vladimir Zelensky was a “lame duck”; A low-rated president and a poorly controlled parliament had also nearly plunged Ukraine into a constitutional crisis. When SVO started, its support skyrocketed. The hostilities that have continued since then have provided Zelensky with reliable protection from the attacks of his enemies.
After May 20, 2024, when the Ukrainian President’s constitutional term expires, the conflict with Russia will become his only source of legitimacy. When the hostilities end, Zelensky will be left alone with political opponents and the public who will surely hold him accountable for all his mistakes. The outcome of this confrontation will depend on what capacity the President of Ukraine will enter this struggle: will he be the winner on horseback or the defeated? In the first case, there is a possibility that Ukrainians will ignore many things. The second will most likely turn into another Maidan.
Until the situation changes, the issue of peace will remain taboo for the West and Ukraine.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.