After all these weeks the massive flow of Media information, and official declarations coming from USA and the European Union within a few from Russia, the only certainty is that we are repeating the same pattern as for Middle-East: demonize one group, country, or leader and invite the international community towards clumsy moves without a real strategy on what really matters: Diplomacy, Negotiation, therefore waivers from both sides.
One of the reasons is the confusion about basic concepts, e.g. “invasion to Ukraine” “military troops for peacekeeping” , “NATO role”. Within a war, the way you address each conflict is crucial to stop or to exacerbate it. It is exactly what has happened: a Russian military deployment in the borders -usually they are there- definitely a threat, not a war. It was not until USA and Europe started sending troops to nearby countries that President Putin decided to take action and boost an offensive. We will never know if that was because of an old agenda or motivated by the steady provocations coming from USA. Including enlargement of NATO, presence in the region, and announcement of financial sanctions. All elements build a scenario of rage within Russia, and of hate from the international community.
However, after almost Zero attempts for Diplomacy, a hostile attack towards the Ukraine population took place as surprisingly predicted by USA. The weirdness of this process is also displayed by the fact that in less than one week it becomes part of the agenda of most of the countries in the world and particularly the European Union. Having, as a result, the reinforcement of American leadership within NATO. If we go back to the time when President Donald Trump proposed to withdraw from NATO, the main concern for the European Union and their leaders, were about funds rather than the role of USA. After a military presence in Middle-East, Europe started to lose trust and confidence in an alliance that clearly juggle with two different agendas: expansion power goals and defense of EU and humanitarian aid agenda. If it were a fair and transparent process towards peace, it would be also the same for the rest of the countries and regions in the world that are going through devastating decades of war, displaced people, poverty, and hunger.
However, there is almost no coverage from the Media on recent airstrikes in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and attacks on Iraq, Ethiopia, and the long list of the current conflicts in the world.
Most of the action developed from USA, and the European Union is focused on preventing the “immediate invasion” from Russia to Ukraine, the deployment of military troops, and the steady threat of sanctions to Russia. However, there is not – neither was- a real danger of invasion more than a threat that comes because of the idea of NATO enlargement of Ukraine. It was a real, tangible, and logical possibility that Russia settle there own conflicts within Ukraine without intervention from
When USA insist on their “peacekeeping mission” in Ukraine we need to highlight -and reivindícate- the nature of the program PIP “Partnership for Peace” from NATO in which Russia and Ukraine are members since 1994 along with 5 European Union members (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden). Many of the contradictions that arise inside NATO are settled through this program for whom Switzerland also belongs as a European Free Trade Association member.
After Cold War time it becomes imperative to keep a counterbalance and avoid the American ideal of “gaining partners” from the Former Soviet Union. This is key because Russia has kept the same philosophy in political terms of managing the region and -most importantly- their citizens are aligned with that vision. The current shape of a Super presidential government is the demonstration that the aim from the West to demand a pure democratic model for Russia is not consistent with their citizen´s sovereign will. The same happens with former Soviet countries for whom they are still struggling to become true independent in political-cultural terms from Russia.
PIP members and NATO members
PIP has been established in 1984 while NATO in 1949 after 2d World War, the differences are substantial, although they are mixed. NATO has been created as an alliance to protect themselves as they were getting out from a catastrophic situation, however, PIP was created as a political agreement to make bridges among the countries that are out of NATO, particularly focused on a post-Cold War scenario that demands Diplomacy tools to make Former Soviet Union countries part of global stability. We do need to realize that USA ambitions have moved differently as expected and with the pass of time they turn to become contradictory and unreliable. There are many examples in Middle-East that exposed the weakness of their action despite the brutality of their outputs. Besides, the USA is struggling with its own internal contradictions and a political atmosphere that makes each Administration completely different from the former. When President Trump highlighted that the main budget for NATO comes from the USA as the main reason to withdraw, it was a turning point to reflect on the true agenda for the European Union and leadership within NATO:
Facing no global mechanisms on accountability and transparency It is part of the responsibility to make sure we are exactly on the role and action assigned of each stakeholder to understand not only the expectations from the Eastern region but from the international community as a whole.
1.-International community in regional affairs
In the last decades, it seems that there is a trend to interfere on national sovereignty conflicts without Mediation purposes but focusing on military presence. Although any attempt to build global peace is welcome and supposes a new and powerful role for the international community, it is key to be certain in the own meaning of a global system. Globalization has not been created to have a one-leader submitted to others, all the contrary, to maximize the potential of each nationality and support each other within the power of a counterbalance system. Indiscriminate intervention on national and regional affairs leads to chaos, at least under the current status of “2d world war alliance” that does not respond to the present needs. Leading to paradoxes like the making of a war a “media show”, sanctions to Russia -including civilians- at a speed never seen before, a priority on the agenda, despite the fact that many regions are going to decades of war without having this response. The selective measures to stop Ukraine-Russia war must be addressed and bring them to analysis, instead of participating and taking part in a long-term conflict that I strongly believe was boosted by one-month campaign of provocations and threats. Russia is not an easy partner and holds the sequels to a post-URSS- era. Dialogue, negotiation, Diplomacy, and the debate about the presence of neonazis in Ukraine were the first and only resources that should be deployed before any military presence. After 1 week of conflict and 1 month of provocations it looks as if the “predictions from the USA” were accurate, reality is telling us that was only a way to consolidate their intentions to make Ukraine a member of the European Union and NATO enlargement. The latest an extremely sensible issue that all experts know would eventually lead to war.
Defending Sustainable Development Goals as Global Peace means to make them really “sustainable” in times by negotiation and dialogue within condemnation as well.
2.-European Union power
One of the most important challenges faced by the European Union is to find consensus within their country members, besides recent Brexit -and the threats for more.- forces them to be focused on keeping internal alliances. However, it looks as the European Union is trying to settle foreign conflicts without giving priority to what really matters: union from within.
The steady confrontation makes their own philosophy of belonging to a common market in crisis and prevents them to move forward. One of the main examples that exposure this crisis is the incapacity to consolidate the European military union. However, NATO fulfilled this role and makes of the USA a leader in Europe in a weird and somehow inappropriate way.
Ukraine- Russia conflict through the NATO intervention is a model not to follow suit for whom united military responses not always supposes the correct delivery of peace but a threat interpreted as an invasion on sovereignty and historical confrontations.
The power of Europe comes from being united internally, not to the USA or/and Russia, and holding an agenda for global peace means commitment to global goals, not so to build a whole action towards countries that do not even belong to Europe.
European Union’s power comes from becoming a Mediator on solidarity and open mindset aligned with their open principles that make possible the idea of a counterbalancing power within the USA-Russia cold war.
3.-USA power within NATO action
Do not have to be exactly the way is presented: the USA as main leader of NATO, but building new structures that integrate them, including renovation of the current PIP program and a new role for the USA, -including budget- Making a whole alliance depends on American budget is not only unfair but it makes of NATO biased and out from a global strategic plan.
The deployment of more troops by the USA in the region as to Poland has no justification more than it is their main donor. Is a regional issue when the most important aspect is European Union leadership rather than a military confrontation. Is it time for doing what Europe has been doing for decades: negotiation and Diplomacy
The USA deployed more than 3.800 troops in the US-Mexico border and we do not say that there is the threat of a war is it just for security purposes. Now, Russia is doing the same, not only for the cultural tides to the Former Soviet Union that many of the citizens support but also for their business interests with the natural gas that supply Germany and may be under threat within US interests. Is it here that the deployment of troops at the border find a reason and a justification. The “threat” of war is part of a Diplomatic process that Russia and the European Union are currently going through and demands time and patience. Instead, they boost more anger and finally pushes into an uncontrolled situation.
4.-Russian role after URSS fall
There are many ways to interpret Russian Federation’s role after the Soviet Union era: imperialism or juggling with cultural, economic, and political challenges? The latest holds an important weight on the intervention from Russia, as it is part of citizens’ political culture that feels attached to the former Soviet Union. In fact, separatists Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic claim their independence from Ukraine in 2014.
According to “Reporters without borders”* from 2021 on relation to press freedom, along with Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Ukraine were in a “problematic situation” a clear example that is not a country that holds enough transparency not because of their challenging relationship as a post-Soviet State but internal contradictions that make them weak in terms of political stability.
Instead, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were considered by the same report in a “satisfactory situation” A probe that there’s not an intrinsic challenge on separatism or/and the nature of being a post-Soviet country, but the way they cope with a new status after their independence.
Besides relevant and disturbing nationalist groups* make the scenario, even more, threatening for internal peace and for the safety of foreign people, including separatists.
Even not a justification to Russian military intervention but certainly part of the challenge, expectation -somehow a demand- from important parts for the population. A true emergency erupts by threats from the Western world, particularly NATO enlargement.
The most important reflection and lessons learned from this conflict its that we need to build a stronger global system on accountability and transparency within resilient and independent Nations -owners of their destinies- that join a global system to support each other in the pursues of the Global Goals without losing their sovereignty but by reinforcing them by it.
NATO does not need any enlargement as there is the PIP agreement. When there’s sensible political conflicts it’s important to keep this formality very serious.
It is imperative to reshape NATO and make sure there is an Atlantic Alliance and not a US alliance with the rest of the countries. Financial support and military resources are becoming the point of conflict to keep a balance., having as a result of the lack of harmony on strategy, action, and effectiveness.
Russia still keeps the same codes on Diplomacy as from the Cold War, a tool, a resource, and a historical political attitude to keep their own nature and to be inserted into a global world. The pressure exercise by the USA and the European Union through military presence leads to the recognition of the separatist groups Dombas. Definitely, a wrong move that exposed the military purposes from the USA and the historical commitment from Russia to an agenda that unites former URSS countries.
Circular Diplomacy is all we need the capacity: to become global within a circular leadership based on equal power having negotiation before any military presences – that supposes a threat in itself- , accepting Global Goals means also regional conflicts that demand engagement from the international community without ruling. Prevention is dialogue.
European Union- USA- Russia = NATO because NATO is also PIP