Were it not for President Zelensky’s communication skills, the world would not be where it is. kyiv would still be far away. Westerners would content themselves with a fleeting air of contrition in front of the two-tone flags of their Ukrainian diasporas, and that would be it. But this war takes another form, it takes place in the information space as much as in cyberspace, within the precincts of the International Court of Justice as well as in the streets of Mariupol.
Invoking the words of Churchill in London, the destruction of the CN Tower in Ottawa, Martin Luther King’s speech to the American Congress or the Holocaust in front of the Bundestag, Zelensky conquers, foot by foot, one Javelin missile at a time, the cooperation from Westerners…and gets ovations he doesn’t care about. This war is also one of misinformation, deepfake and information overload. Because it takes place live on social networks – constituting a mutation comparable to that of the “Nintendo” war in Iraq in 1991. The comic actor who has become an emblematic warlord excels in this theater. To the point of being able to give lessons in leadership and courage to whoever holds the helm in Washington (and to a few others).
Washington’s role is indeed in the balance. Recent history is dotted with key moments that redefine international relations… The two world wars. The nuclear bomb. The fall of the Berlin Wall. September 11th. Iraq. The Arab Spring. Moments when, depending on whether they chose to intervene or remain silent, invade or stay behind, their leaders catapulted the tectonic plates of world politics against each other, with lasting consequences — international law and United Nations, deterrence and appropriate management mechanisms, NATO enlargement, the war against terrorism, etc.
Mutations marking out a before and an after, in the way Stefan Zweig recounted the “world of yesterday”, that of before 1914. This war is one of those moments, which it is likely that months to measure the real amplitude of these shocks. On the effectiveness of international law. on nuclear proliferation. On the arms race. On the balance of powers. On its ramifications outside Europe.
The head of the Kremlin himself establishes this link between the enlargement of NATO, since the end of the 1990s, and the current war. It is true that Russia had railed against NATO at the time, in vain. It is also true that Europe has neglected to treat thousand-year-old Russia with all the respect that this ancient empire considered it due. However, one can argue at will on the true content of the promise of non-enlargement. The fact remains that in no case can a series of diplomatic errors justify invading a State, flouting its sovereignty, bombing a neighboring country and committing war crimes there.
That doesn’t mean that American (or European) foreign policy couldn’t get out of hand (and have dramatic consequences in history), and what goes for Moscow goes for Washington, but in this case, it is kyiv it is. And it should perhaps be repeated: Ukraine’s sovereign choices (to turn to the EU and NATO) are nobody’s business: that is what sovereignty is all about.
A second element is attached to this one. Biden has said it many times, no question of risking confrontation with Russia. However, some points should be clarified. First, this war is already internationalized if we consider the origin of the weapons and mercenaries who are now fighting on Ukrainian soil. Then, the war can be nuclear without being total. The question of Washington’s reaction in the event of the use of a tactical nuclear weapon will arise, because the parallel channels of communication that Chief of Staff Milley has tried to weave with his Russian alter ego have the sole purpose of prevent the conflict from emerging from Ukraine — perhaps leaving aside the hypothesis of a lesser weapon, albeit a nuclear one.
Moreover, war can be apocalyptic without actually being nuclear. Thus, the American national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, warned his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, against any use of chemical or biological weapons. But this warning only has value if it is followed by action. However, kyiv is not the outcome of this conflict if we are to believe the threats of the Russian ambassador with regard to Bosnia this week, and the specter of Munich in 1938 hangs over the Carpathians. Because we must not be mistaken: in the Kremlin, we have made the link between Barack Obama’s failed red line in Syria (on the use of chemical weapons, precisely), the relative American inertia and the subsequent blank check in Moscow, the “Russian peace” in Nagorno-Karabakh, the conquest of Crimea, the “pacification” of Kazakhstan, the vassalization of Belarus.
In fact, the various parliamentarians to whom Zelensky addressed this week sometimes wiped crocodile tears. The refusal of 31 Republican senators to support a 13.6 billion US dollar aid package for Ukraine last week, or their blocking of key nominations for the resolution of the crisis (including officials – at the State and USAID—sanctions, humanitarian aid, or nuclear security) shows that polarization prevails once the moment of emotion has passed.
Biden is operating in troubled waters with a cement block at his feet. And the increase in defense budgets in the months to come as well as the resumption of the arms race will be there to demonstrate that the world has taken note of a new situation. A good number of States may be afraid of only constituting the frontier space of their neighbours, a sort of buffer zone between powers, illustrating in essence the harbinger character of the Ukrainian crisis. In the Balkans as in the Baltic area. In the Pacific and in the Arctic. Alone. In a world that has, in three weeks, already profoundly changed.