Once again, with Ukraine and Gaza conflict, we have witnessed the negative impact of the EU in taking part in historical-regional conflicts, defending the idea that a political position in favor of one side or the other is a must to build peace, using funding as a way to influence negatively, thus, “interfering”, and not simply “helping”. A position that is not working, and gains uneasy feelings from both sides, including inside the EU, contributing badly to the necessary cohesion to finally becoming a pillar that serves as a facilitator, and not part of America´s goals in strategic geopolitical power.
Once again, fighting for peace is not an exercise of humanitarian aid, negotiation, and diplomacy but a tendentious attitude towards finding external initiatives the solution for a historical, regional and religious crisis. Is indeed a long-term crisis and not just an armed conflict, if it were it would be easier to find a fair land distribution, and settle the conflict even without much conviction from both sides, although under international pressure. However, the fact that any kind of provocation lights the fire of hate, anger, and resentment from past atrocities means that new generations are accepting the struggle in an updated version with no will to negotiate just “destroying the enemy”. This applies perfectly in the case of the Gaza conflict, and Ukraine-Russia gets the shape of an aggressive nationalism that does not allow Russian residents in the region.
Conflicts of this magnitude only find their way when we let them go by their own. Is it hardly probable that deep differences, senses of revenge, and a painful past would not allow them to move forward as we may expect as outsiders’ observers? Is it through a neutral position that a positive address can be achieved within a humble acceptance of the deep limitations of the European Union particularly related to institutional management skills? Delivering empowerment to both sides might come from making them feel supported only if they make tangible steps towards peace negotiations. Is in this sense that I strongly believe that the solution for Gaza does not rely on the “two-state solution” but erasing the reason for the confrontation which is the land occupation, making all the area patrimony of humanity, a sort kind of “no man´s land”. More than 70 years of conflict deserve an innovative way out that “blocks” them instead of fueling the confrontation but trying to force the parties to get into a solution that doesn’t come equally from both, only from external sources.
The same happened with the Ukraine-Russia crisis when in a weird interpretation from reality, the European Union started backing Ukraine as a “victim”, and endorsing a global campaign against Russia instead of reducing their action to a neutral focus, and fast settlement After 20 months we realize that the success from a strategical action is not based on a long-term military action, but a steady push into negotiation. Focusing on getting an end will not make Russia or Ukraine but definitely will stop Russia´s ambitions to control, and Ukraine´s plan to destroy Russia. The alternative is a never-ending conflict -similar to Gaza in its irreconcilable nature-.Is also good to forecast that if continues probably China will take part and support Russia’s military, a big threat that only the USA is up to take, not the European Union, nor the rest of the NATO members.
Is not a good idea to take part in a conflict that has as main actors: Ukraine as a leader of far-right groups, considered in 2014 as a “far-right hub”(The Guardian UK*), having a nationalist agenda based on allowing neo-nazis groups – also inside their National forces as Azov Brigade- as well as anti-Russia movements against their residents especially in the Dombas region, furthermore, a determined goal of re-taking Crimea by the essential opportunity that delivers European Union support political, and military.
On the other side, Russia with a strong will to defend the will from Russian citizens, and residents in the region who explicitly showed their will with the referendum on 23 September 2022, for whom, 87% supported the annexation.
I do believe the official version, that the original idea -as a difference from the American version- was not an invasion, but an effective threat by the military presence in the border to make the necessary changes to reduce the impact from far-right groups, particularly dangerous if we consider that is part of the National Guard. Not an invasion of Ukraine, just implementing referendum outcomes. An illegal referendum, however in realistic terms exposed the will of Russian citizens in a region that demanded to go beyond the law in terms of avoiding major violence, which indeed, was happening. “To win” means stability, peace, and security for all Ukrainian and Russian citizens not just Ukraine´s victory
If the process were neutral accepting military presence in the area from Russia, it would easily prevent war, certainly not an ideal situation but much better than the current tragedies. However, the tone of the conflict is always the same: fueling the anger, having Ukraine´s victory as a goal that is not correlated with a complex, and cruel reality.
In the end, the European Union is being in complicity with the most grotesque way to show the aim to destroy a Nation, not to end a conflict, to chase Russian citizens, not to stop the war. The latest should be the only real goal.
Since 2014 the European Union has been applying sanctions, however, they are only effective temporarily with a purpose, the rest is easy to conclude: USA powerful struggle to compete with an old rival that it is not among Europe’s principles and spirit. Besides, if we take into account that NATO is funded by the USA in 70% we may get to conclusions easily. Is not exactly a European Union- USA fair agreement, but American interests in a polarized geopolitical relation with Russia that is taking the opportunity to have the European Union under their control.
There are enough reasons to support the idea that America holds a particular interest in Ukraine beyond any intention for global stability. Simply to analyze the allocated budget we can understand why. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, “the total amount of aid to Ukraine from the United States has amounted to $66.2 billion, of which $43.1 billion is military aid, $20.5 billion is part of economic support, and the remaining $2.6 billion is humanitarian aid.”(*)
Is a priority for Biden´s Administration, although is not for the international community that their only focus is to end the conflict, not necessarily a military victory.
Charles Michel repeatedly states: “The EU will support you-Ukraine- for as long as it takes”(*). No doubts of the good intentions, however without the vision of the consequences of delivering military victory to Ukraine instead of a peaceful solution to put an end. The EU is furthering a military agenda and not a Diplomatic one, the concept of “as long as it takes” supposes more military deployment, and ineffective, useless, and discriminatory sanctions to Russia, nothing more than that in terms of simply delivering peace. The lack of reflection and the growing commitment to NATO undermines the very roots of European philosophy and puts in risk the Union in unprecedented terms within a political correct tone, although a strategically incorrect way to stop the war.
As recently stated by Emirates Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Highness Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan about Europe and terrorism: “trying to be politically correct, or assuming that they know the Middle East, and they know Islam…. far better than we do.. I am sorry is simply ignorance” (*). We may add that is also a way to enter into complicity with dark interests in “fabricating” wars and boosting confrontation. Is a fact that instability plays a key role in benefiting foreign financial interests in the region, instead of balancing competition among the two powers: the USA and Russia which in the end are the real actors of a war that Ukraine has never had the resources to fight back.
Is it surprising that within the current instability in the USA based on weak national security, having the Maine Massacre as the latest case, among a long list of growing violence cases, the USA is still allocating budget to foreign wars. .A Nation that is failing to deliver peace to its citizens is not up to the challenge of building peace around the world.
In the end, a democracy that is gradually becoming fragile inside, and powerful in foreign affairs -better said, financial affairs-.
We might analyze two key indicators considered for the Fragile States: security apparatus and factionalized elites ( from the Fragile State Index), that lead us to alarming and contradictory conclusions about their determined policy to interfere in foreign wars, although within deep internal chaos in terms of national security.
Let’s see through the example of the recent “self-defense strike” from USA in Syria (*), as a response to “20 slightly wounded military personnel”. As stated by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin:
“If attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. forces continue, we will not hesitate to take further necessary measures to protect our people.”
Is this also part of the European Union’s strategy? Europe is willing to start a war in Syria -Iran- because of the Gaza crisis? The answer is quite easy, a “strategic” alliance with NATO would eventually force Europe to enter in “war”, and pursue a military agenda with powerful political ends.
Since its constitution, the European Union has played a pivotal role in “helping” in regional conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Their role as a peacemaker was acknowledged all over the world, and their capacity to be a catalyzer from the old rivalry USA- and Russia by avoiding to escalation of the conflict. Europe holds strong links to Russia that not even the Crimea crisis was able to break. However, it seems that the recent past has been erased and Europe´s interests are the same as USA, when there are also competitive elements in commercial aspects that make Europe a strong competitor. A strategic partnership with NATO does not necessarily mean being “one”.
The same happens with the Gaza conflict, despite all the atrocities from both sides, the EU cannot take a position but just be focused on the purpose: peace. Only when there is recognition of the conflict and respect for both sides is when it becomes effective in terms of peacemaking action.
The role of the EU is about helping in conflicts, not interfering, and tangible action is translated into more humanitarian aid, less political judgment, cautious NATO strategic partnership, and high levels of Diplomacy and negotiation. From the latest, it would be good to acknowledge that innovation, creativity, and an open mindset are the true ways to keep peace in an extremely conflictive region. Not as the current situation the traditional way of approaching: military and fear from Russia, and also from the USA to become Europe´s enemy is what is leading Europe´s foreign affairs.
In addition, Europe is facing a crisis in its credibility as is not consistent with a focus on peace-keeping but ideological, politically messy, and selective engagement within foreign conflicts.(*)
Lets help by not interfering, delivering solutions towards peace-keeping at any cost, and not, keeping military action at all cost.
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-credibility-on-the-line-as-gaza-shifts-focus-from-ukraine/a-67228110
thesustainabilityreader 