FROM OUR REPORTER
KIEV – Three reflections on this first year of the war: the western front held and remained united in support of the Ukrainians; the conflict has morphed over the months from the quick blitz that Vladimir Putin originally dreamed of into a long war of attrition; Ukrainian identity was not forged by Russian aggression but sustained precisely because it was already firmly on its own two feet and ready to fight to defend itself. Volodymyr Zelenskyy did nothing but faithfully interpret the widespread will of his people to resist, as a good actor he was able to convey Ukrainian feelings, which is the reason for his immense popularity. These are some of the core arguments of the “Manifesto for a Sustainable Peace” that 63-year-old historian Yaroslav Hrytsak, a professor at Lviv University and author of a “History of Ukraine” due to be published soon in Italy Types of the Mill, will launch on March 4 along with other intellectuals from his country, driven by a shared concern that “time is now on Putin’s side and a relatively quick military victory is needed” to try to impose a lasting peace.
Who breaks down first?
“Contrary to the convictions that Putin had formed in recent years and the forecasts of the Eurosceptics, the West has grown stronger with the war, and NATO has re-emerged, powerful and united. Putin deluded himself that he could negotiate separately with Berlin, Rome, Paris, Washington or London, believing that each would put their own interests first, but he was surprised by their unanimous and strong response when they chorused the aggression convicted. Essentially, the war remade the West,” explains Hrytsak. But the bad news is that the dynamic of the conflict has now changed. “Battles reminiscent of World War One. Sure, there are technological aspects, but essentially it’s conventional warfare, with two more or less equal enemies engaged in a trench warfare. In the summer of 1917 it was estimated that the Allies would arrive in Berlin in 70 years. Last May, London strategists estimated that the Russians could take Kiev perhaps in 2051 if they proceeded at the current pace.” The way out? ‘The collapse of either side. Putin is aware of this, so he counts on the time factor, he hopes that sooner or later the Western countries will leave Kiev».
to force steps
But the collapse remains very difficult to predict. No one had foreseen the collapse of the tsarist regime in 1917, or the German one a year later, or even the Soviet one more than thirty years ago, certainly not in terms of timing or manner. Translated in contemporary terms, Ukraine must do everything it can to win by 2023. «Ukraine is bleeding, it must end the war, but not at the price of a territorial compromise, it must regain its territories up to the 1991 borders, including Donbass and Crimea. Otherwise, there is a risk that the peace will be just a truce, giving Putin time to reorganize the army and soon return to the attack, stronger than before. We risk becoming a new Chechnya. After the Bucha and Irpin massacres, after the very severe Russian violence, no Ukrainian is ready to make a territorial compromise anymore».
The Russian successor
The risk of a Ukrainian collapse is certainly not excluded: “Possible and yet in the distant future”, because now the arrival of Western weapons remains unchanged and, above all, the Ukrainian population’s moral will to fight is by no means broken. ‘The war of attrition is a contest between the resources of both sides. Don’t forget that Russia’s GNP does not exceed Spain’s, while our allies’ economies are infinitely stronger.” More likely are Russia’s collapse and Putin’s default. What about the possibility of an even more fanatical dictator emerging at the helm of Moscow? «I don’t think so, just as I don’t think that an opponent of the democratic front like Aleksei Navalny can take power. Rather, I am thinking of a minor figure among the current leaders in the Kremlin who is destined to lead the transition, a bit like what happened in 1991.”
The lies about NATO
But how do you answer those in Europe, and especially in Italy, who claim that NATO is really responsible for the Russian attack, which after the collapse of the USSR did not respect the agreements and spread east? “Nonsense and untruth. At the time of the Soviet breakup, Moscow leaders agreed to let Ukraine become independent, guided by the belief that it would then be the Ukrainians themselves who would be begging on their knees to return to Mother Russia. Putin decided to invade us when he understood that we wanted to stay in free Europe. As for NATO, there is no signed document and no official agreement between the two parties that indicates a commitment in this sense. Even the memoirs of Gorbachev’s interpreter never mention this. In addition, the inviolable principle of the self-determination of peoples remains valid. After the end of the USSR, it was our people who en masse asked NATO to rid them of the Moscow threat. From the Baltic countries to Poland and Ukraine, we knew that the Russians would soon return to try to occupy us and this should be enough to understand our reasons, which were confirmed by the tragic attack a year ago.”