A conflict that adds up and continues

A year of war in Ukraine, the year of prevailing war-mongering logic in a troubled world that hurts us. Have we done enough to stop the conflict? Certainly not. To a large extent, this was predictable within the framework of international society, driven by geopolitical interests that sometimes fuel conflict. What actually surprises us is how the European democratic countries favored a commitment to war rather than peace. And all this in a kind of escalation with provocative language and with the progressive contribution of weapons of various types, initially of a defensive nature, and now a clearly attacking character. We left no opportunity for dialogue or detente. Our lethargic societies have allowed it.

Obviously, one country is the aggressor (Russia) and the other is attacked (Ukraine) and our sympathy is normally that he clearly opts for the latter. But that’s one thing, and another to close almost every path to detente, even though some European leaders unsuccessfully tried to do so a few months ago (Macron or Scholz). Spain not even that, always placed on the side of the easy trigger. In the 21st century, we cannot continue to think with the same parameters from the past, which were the cause of so many wars and suffering. Optics must change, but state officials do not understand this, as well as a large part of the citizenry.

Therefore, Europe should change its political strategy and promote a comprehensive agreementwhich reconfigures security in the Eurasian space and which escapes Manichean schemes of dialectical confrontation.

Russia and Ukraine must have mutual security guarantees, for which high-minded proposals must be made. It would also be necessary to convince our American partner that the peace option is better than war, offers more opportunities and respects human rights more.

The worst thing is that there is no satisfactory end in sight to this war. The contenders remain in maximalist positions and the Western allies seem to be trying to continue until the defeat of Russia, but this is clearly not good for international security, especially in view of the nuclear threat. Nor is it positive to link this conflict and its evolution to the hot dynamics of the Asia-Pacific zone and to combine asymmetric and hybrid conflicts in a state of constant tension. We want an international society of securities, not risk and uncertainty. Some people prefer crises, but, as you can see, these situations are very harmful to the public, so we should not accept them. Meanwhile, people continue to die in the war zone, bringing economic benefits to the war industry. If anything, it’s unfair in 2023.