1.-Set a wrong precedent over other candidates
“It is unrealistic to suggest that Ukraine sacrifice its people, territory, and sovereignty in exchange for nominal peace” Indeed! great remarks from Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister Dmytro Kuleba, The idea from the West that civilians are dying because of Russia’s invasion, and that Ukraine remains vulnerable, and disempowered, is simply mistaken.
The Ukrainian Government has taken a deep, dangerous, and determined decision that is to go to war with all negative consequences despite Russia’s responsibility of taking the first step, there is a big manipulation from the West to not acknowledge that Ukraine is winning the war from high and sophisticated technology delivered by the United States.
The simple decision to respond may be considered a matter of justice -going to war against all odds- although, it represents a huge responsibility from the Ukrainian Government, and also for the EU, and the international community as they are becoming part of the conflict by materialising their support on military terms, instead of political and humanitarian.
Taking part in a historical conflict does not help on the road to building peace.
Recently -on 15th June- Portugal PM Antonio Costa* accurately told to the Financial Times “is not legal debates about Ukraine but practical deliveries”.Supporting the country is not necessary about EU membership, military supplies, or NATO particular agenda, but peace-building -wrongly associated with NATO enlargement-. However, shortly after these declarations it changed radically and supported the candidacy, exposing that politics is not about common senses, idealism, or/and a results-driven strategy, but a steady game, sometimes, out of control from political leaders.
Going through the conditions established by the European Union to apply as candidates we easily get to conclusions that Ukraine does not meet the conditions. “To become an EU member, must be a country with stable institutions guaranteeing democracy/rule of law, where human rights and respect for and protection of minorities are guaranteed”* One of the reasons for Russia to start the war is because of the lack of protection for pro- Soviet Union supporters as well as Russian residents in Ukraine that system has been boycotted and chased by far-right movements, especially from Azov.
2.-Corruption in Ukraine
In 2019 there were huge mobilisations in Ukraine coming from far-right groups against Corruption. Paradoxically, or not, under the current circumstances, the civil society protests were led by and within extremism. Gives us clues to understand the internal reality that goes beyond Russia’s invasion due to a historical ambition to keep the former Soviet Union alive. Is about internal conflicts and the powerful leadership from extremism, a true nationalist agenda that do not allow pro-Russian citizens. Is frequently forgotten that many former Soviet Union countries still hold citizens that are not only of Russian nationality but also supporters and enthusiastic pro-Russia.
As stated by USAID (2019) corruption is a key burden: “the 2019-2024 USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy for Ukraine categorises Ukraine as the most corrupt country in Europe”.*
Facts not interpretations or/and analysis.
Unfortunately, despite a strong and high technology defence that is making them winners from originally Russia´s invasion, it holds the candidate status for the EU. Is reliable information and data that accurately indicated the danger of corruption that may easily spread its “tentacles” among Europe.
If there is anything that we may be certain is that war does not cancel corruption.
I strongly believe that political instability and security vulnerability may lead to more corruption, somehow in an out-of-control scenario for European Union standards. A country that is submerged in corruption collapses in transparency at all levels, precisely when a crisis like war erupts. Is it so, that is foreseeable that when war is over we would be witnessed the financial system crisis.
3.-Institutionalisation of Azov far-right group integration into the military structure
Seeing under the light of the current Russian invasion it seems hard to see the big picture, the root causes, and the deep and complex presence and influence of far-right groups in Ukraine – now part of their legal institutions-. In 2013 Ukraine qualified as a “key hub for the international white nationalist scene”*
A quick look at several articles, especially from 2014 suggest that extremism is power in Ukraine fuelled by external support:
“Far-right groups remain strong in Ukraine, with the ability to marshal thousands of supporters for protests and rallies, some of whom carry Nazi and white supremacist insignia”.*
“Since late 2014, with the gradual modernisation of the Ukrainian armed forces and the attrition of the Donbas conflict, the Azov Regiment has become more formally organised, building on its formal affiliation with the Ukrainian National Guard”*
“Officials of the National Corps were instrumental in organising ‘Paneuropa’ conferences in Kyiv in April 2017 and October 2018, attracting white supremacist and other far-right groups from across Europe”*
Reuters 2018: “Western diplomats and Human Rights organisations must urge Ukraine Government to uphold the Rule Of Law to stop allowing far right to act with impunity” eradicate the extremism that has been poisoning Ukrainian politics”*
Gradually “the militias have been formally integrated into Ukraine’s armed forces, but some have resisted full integration: Azov, for example, runs its own children’s training camp”*
As Hillary Clinton* admitted in public “the people we are fighting today we funded them 20 years ago and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated they lost billions of dollars, it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union”
This is the main reason why the American agenda on global security is radically different from the European Union goals. Funding and delivering arms to Ukraine is not necessarily about building peace but the continuity of a rusty model to defeat Russia.
4.-NATO expansion
The same reasons that are leading to NATO expansion, are same to apply the creation of a European Union army. The exclusively and historical idea of the United States to make the planet just one by “ American first” and “only one global world model” led by unipolar forces is not what will lead us to resilience. Certainly is what is happening, and in a post-World War II era, there is a fake scenario based only on the US and the rest of the Nations.
The idea of building a global world is about joining efforts not to centralize power, precisely because globalisation embraces all Nations under the same philosophy: guarantee global security, not interference in national sovereignties or/and measure local challenges through only one lens.
Through geopolitics, terms are that we realise the extreme danger of this expansion by Russia’s reactions. Is not about European Union enlargement as a political-economic union but NATO military power that represents a threat to the whole region. Besides, it exposed its failure to serve as a facilitator to the historical conflicts within the former Soviet Union countries.
OTAN enlargement supposes not only a threat to keep stability but also a way to cancel European Union power. The same ideas should be applied to make Europe stronger, building a bridge with the US without transferring leadership.
Former NATO Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmusen* on Nato in Ukraine: “not only about building infrastructure but to build a new democracy, fighting corruption”.
Do we have heard this before? Yes! Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. It does not work and never will. Is it just part of the American political agenda, not a European peace-builder agenda.
5.-Undermining European Union Army project
NATO expansion is the expression of the need from the US to boycott the European Union project and their final consolidation with their own Army. The defence of the European Union comes from a regional power within global support, not the other way round. Is a very old ambition of the United States to become more powerful than Europe, and not to become part of a multipolar scenario of balance.
The role of the European Union in the Ukraine-Russia war exposed their weakness. The deployment of armament, and general political position supposes the loose of a precious opportunity to become one more axis of global power, without being submitted to the different agendas instead of European political goals.
Delivering humanitarian aid is not the same as taking part in the conflict. Building peace supposes dialogue and negotiation not the delivery of armament. This conflict exposes the wrong direction taken by the Union and its role as facilitator, not aggressor. Especially because Ukraine is not a country that holds guarantees of its own national integrity in terms of extremism, discrimination, corruption, and general accountability. Just to give an example: Ukraine´s use of high technology as drones contradicts the idea of a civilian population defending themselves or/and weak military infrastructure.
For building peace it is important to be based on real threats, as we pointed out at the beginning of this article: “It is unrealistic to suggest that Ukraine sacrifice its people, territory, and sovereignty in exchange for nominal peace” (Dymtro Kuleba).
Perpetuating the idea of vulnerability is what is leading to NATO expansion and the pursuit of “peace” is reduced only to the European region, without including Russia. Is precisely the unipolar power of the US that exacerbates it.
“We are now facing a fundamentally changed security environment in Europe,” says Swedish PM M.Andersson. However is not necessary through the NATO road that we may address it but by EU Army, the perfect formula for reshaping regional power by the reinforcement of global alliances.
The only balanced position from those outside the conflict is building peace, accepting interests from both sides, out of euphoria, fake news, and hate speech.
We must be peace builders, not Media followers.
The complexity of this situation deserves our open eyes, and open arms to embrace negotiation.
War is not an option… even for Ukraine.
https://ctc.usma.edu/the-nexus-between-far-right-extremists-in-the-united-states-and-ukraine
https://www.newsweek.com/why-joe-biden-volodymyr-zelensky-wont-say-ukraine-winning-war-1717463
https://www.newsweek.com/why-joe-biden-volodymyr-zelensky-wont-say-ukraine-winning-war-1717463
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/enlargement-policy/conditions-membership_en
thesustainabilityreader 