For some time now, the actions and public statements of our leaders have increasingly demonstrated that Russia’s inexcusable war in Ukraine is part of the larger prospect of a NATO-Russia conflict. On the Russian side, it has been obvious for a long time: the extension of NATO is one of the main reasons given. But as far as “our side” is concerned, this franchise is new. A growing number of analysts speak of a proxy war. Where, as we’ve heard elsewhere, the United States (and its close allies) seem intent on fighting Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
The war escalation
The escalation was already noticeable with Joe Biden’s fiery words about Putin the “murderous dictator”, the “worst thug”, and the assertion that “this man must not stay in power”. This closes the door to any possible prospect of negotiating a new security architecture in Europe.
The stronger than expected resistance of the Ukrainian army may have led to believe that it could repel the aggressor. The withdrawal of Russian troops to Donbass, however, led to an escalation, while President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he could take back the entire territory, including Crimea, before the end of the year. More serious was US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s statement that the goal was to “weaken Russia,” which points to an even longer and more deadly war. However, despite the obvious difficulties experienced by its army, Russia has nevertheless gained ground, even if the process is slower and more expensive than expected.
The hard line maintained
If the French and German leaders plead in favor of negotiations, as we also hear from former diplomats in the United States, including Henry Kissinger, this is much less the case on the side of Washington, London, Ottawa and some Eastern European countries, such as Poland. Thus, at the beginning of April, when the talks in Istanbul seemed encouraging, with Ukraine agreeing in particular to give up NATO membership in exchange for neutrality and security guaranteed by both sides, the first British Minister Boris Johnson made a surprise visit to Kyiv to urge his counterpart Zelensky to refuse to negotiate with Putin “conditions that lend credence to the Kremlin’s false narrative about the invasion”.
In other words, we still refuse to admit any legitimacy to the 30-year-old Russian demands for a new security architecture in Europe that would take into account the interests of all countries. Such an admission would be tantamount to recognizing a certain responsibility of the United States and its allies in the deterioration of relations with Russia in recent years.
We much prefer the image of an imperialist Russia led by an ambitious and bloodthirsty tsar dreaming of restoring the former borders of the USSR, or even the lame comparison with the behavior of the liberal regimes in the face of Nazism in the period preceding the World War II. In this way, supporters of war at all costs against Russia can continue to dominate the public space and hurl insults at supporters of a negotiated solution.
Are arms deliveries to Ukraine, however, the only possible response to the situation in which the country finds itself? Do we really believe in a victory against Russia, whose leaders seem determined to go all the way to defend what they perceive to be their interests? The Russian army currently controls 20% of Ukrainian territory. Should we wait for the capitulation of Odessa and the entire Black Sea coast to begin negotiations, when the balance of power will lean even more strongly on Moscow’s side?
Dramatic repercussions
The Ukrainian economy is already in a deep crisis. A third of its infrastructure is destroyed. GDP is expected to fall by 30% to 45% this year. More than 10% of the population has left the country, 15% has been displaced. The number of dead is unknown. President Zelensky recently admitted that currently between 60 and 100 Ukrainian soldiers die every day and that 500 are wounded and therefore disabled.
This war has repercussions all over the world. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas and the second largest oil exporter. As Europe now seeks to reduce its imports of oil and gas from Russia, other countries must increase supply, leading to higher prices. The day before the invasion, the price of a barrel of oil (this is Brent) was around US$89. On June 2, it reached over US$117, an increase of 32%.
Much more serious is the growing hunger and the risk of starvation which threatens tens of millions of people. Ukraine and Russia account for 30% of world wheat exports, 20% of world corn exports and a third of barley. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 14 countries in Africa depend on Russian and Ukrainian wheat at 50% or more, including Eritrea at 100%, Somalia at more than 90% and Egypt at almost 75%.
With food shortages and galloping inflation, this war will generate social and political tensions all over the world. To this, it should be added that Russia and Ukraine are among the largest exporters of fertilizers, which could have a significant impact on importers, particularly Brazil.
Added to these serious consequences is growing insecurity and increased military spending in several countries, including Canada. Since humanity must also face the threat of global warming, all energy and resources should be put into negotiations to avoid the consequences of a long war of attrition, which implies concessions made on both sides. . However, we have to admit that currently, our governments do not act according to such objectives.