Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, notes that the hoped-for peace in 2024 “must be just.” Which means: “a peace with economic, social and political rights for all; a peace with the state and citizenship for those denied it; a peace with the end of exile for all who have lost their home.”
Words that perfectly match those of President Mattarella when he warned that the desire for peace is “not an indifference to what is happening,” an attitude that would be “unfair and even despicable,” but rather “the rejection of logic “the constant competition between states” means what endangers the fate of their respective peoples.”
Rather, the end-of-year speeches of some current protagonists in world politics lack any substantial reference to the search for a just peace. It is important to point out right away that these are leaders with completely different, even opposing, political and moral positions: Vladimir Putin is an imperialist aggressor who violates the territorial integrity of a nation with weapons and denies its right to be sovereign to decide their own fate. And Chinese leader Xi Jinping is an autocrat who also intends to pursue an imperial project of annexing a sovereign state.
By contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selesnky and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are two democratically elected leaders forced to respond: the former to an all-out Kremlin war of aggression, the latter to the deadliest attack on Israel since the Holocaust. But this essential difference cannot prevent us from perceiving the content full of threats, the promises of a continuation of the war and the allusions to violent tendencies, which pay little or no attention to ceasefires, massive humanitarian interventions, ceasefires and certainly not to negotiations the upcoming year.
Putin's threats
Putin's rhetoric changes from last year, when he appeared to describe the war in Ukraine as an “existential struggle” for Russia. Now, strengthened by the stalled Kiev offensive, by a growing economy and by full control of the internal situation, the Kremlin chief is celebrating his soldiers, calling them “heroes” and warning: “We have proven once again that we can solve the problem.” “We will face ever more difficult problems and never back down because there is no power that can divide the Russians.”
Then, a day after ordering the most massive and devastating drone strike against Ukraine since the conflict began, Putin makes a false opening: “We don't feel like fighting forever.” But we won't give up our positions either,” he says during a hospital visit. For Putin, peace is by definition not right: “We also want the conflict to end as quickly as possible, but only on our terms.”
Zelensky's answer
It is not surprising that Volodymyr Zelensky reacts in kind: “Next year the enemy will suffer the destruction of our domestic production,” the Ukrainian president promises in his speech to the nation, confident that this will happen in 2024 thanks to a million additional manufactured ones Drones will be the case at home and, above all, with the American F-16 fighter jets finally ready for use, the Russians will “see what our anger is”. But Zelensky subtly shows his concern as he calls on his Western allies to maintain their support despite signs of weariness among them.
Xi proposes annexation
The case of Xi Jinping is different. The Beijing leader speaks from future memory, even as he does not miss the opportunity to convey good wishes to Putin and reaffirm an increasingly strategic partnership: “In the face of international turmoil, relations between China and Russia have remained healthy.” Development and Stability. But the core of the Chinese president's speech is a warning to Taiwan: “Its reunification with the motherland is a historic inevitability.” And “compatriots” on both sides of the Strait “must be bound by a common goal and share the glory of national rebirth.” Xi glosses over the timing, waiting for the island’s Jan. 13 elections to find out if there is one there will be a more malleable interlocutor in the Taiwanese government. But the direction is annexation. And the dragon has never ruled out the possible use of force.
Netanyahu against “pressure”
Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, leaves no room for interpretation, saying that Israel's campaign in Gaza will continue for months, with all the destruction and risk of a humanitarian catastrophe this entails: “It takes more time to achieve absolute victory,” says he The Israeli prime minister claims he has “resisted international pressure to end the war before we have achieved all of our goals.”
If the goal of destroying the terrorist organization is understandable, it is not at all understandable that Netanyahu is also resisting pressure, particularly American, to define a post-Hamas scenario in which a new and legitimate Palestinian partner will take over the government of the Gaza Strip. Joe Biden, Tom Friedman revealed in the New York Times, even shouted it to him several times in their confidential phone conversations: “But if Netanyahu continues to refuse, because it's not the right moment for him politically,” Friedman warns in an obviously inspired one Article from the White House – Biden will soon be forced to choose between America’s interests and Netanyahu’s personal interests.”