FROM OUR REPORTER
KIEV — Tre considerations on this first year of war: the western front held and remained united in support of the Ukrainians; the conflict has transformed over the months from the quick blitzkrieg, originally dreamed of by Vladimir Putin, into a long war of attrition; the Ukrainian identity was not forged by Russian aggression, but held up precisely because it was already solid on its own feet and ready to fight to defend itself. Volodymyr Zelensky has done nothing but faithfully interpret the widespread will of resistance of his people, as a good actor he was able to tell Ukrainian feelings, this is the reason for his immense popularity. These are some of the main arguments of the “Manifesto for a Sustainable Peace” that the 63-year-old historian Yaroslav Hrytsakprofessor at the University of Lviv and author of a “History of Ukraine” soon to be published in Italy by Il Mulino, will present on March 4 together with other intellectuals from his country driven by the shared concern that “time he is now on Putin’s side and a relatively quick military victory is needed» to try to impose a lasting peace.
Who collapses first?
«Contrary to the convictions that Putin had formed in recent years and to the forecasts of the Eurosceptics, the West has strengthened itself with the war, 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 give priority to their own interests, but he found himself taken aback by their unanimous and strong reaction when they condemned the aggression in chorus. Basically, the war recreated the West» explains Hrytsak. But the bad news is that the dynamics of the conflict have now changed. TO”Battles reminiscent of those of the First World War. Sure there are technological aspects, but in essence it is conventional warfare, with two more or less equal enemies locked in a war of position. In the summer of 1917 it was estimated that Allied forces would arrive in Berlin in 70 years. Last May, London strategists estimated that if the Russians were to proceed at the current pace they could take Kiev perhaps in 2051TO”. The way out? “The collapse of one of the two sides. Putin is aware of this, that’s why he counts on the time factor, he hopes that sooner or later the Western countries will abandon Kiev».
Steps to force
But the collapse remains very difficult to predict. No one had anticipated 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 timing or manner. Translated into contemporary terms, Ukraine must do everything to win by 2023. «Ukraine is bleeding, it must end the war, but not at the price of a territorial compromise, it must recover its territories up to the 1991 borders , including Donbass and Crimea. Otherwise, the risk is that peace is only a truce that will give Putin time to reorganize the army and soon return to attack stronger than before. We risk becoming a new Chechnya. After the massacres of Bucha and Irpin, after the very serious Russian violence, no Ukrainian is more willing to make a territorial compromise».
The Russian succession
The risk of the Ukrainian collapse is certainly not excluded: “Possible and yet at the remote moment”, for now the arrival of Western weapons remains unchanged and above all the moral determination of the Ukrainian population to fight is not at all cracked. “The war of attrition is a contest between the resources of the two sides. Do not forget that Russia’s gross national product does not exceed that of Spain, while the economies of our allies are infinitely stronger.’ Russia’s collapse and Putin’s defenestration are more likely. What about the possibility that an even more fanatical dictator emerges at the helm of Moscow? «I don’t think, just as I don’t think an opponent of the democratic front like Aleksey Navalny. Rather, I am thinking of a minor figure among the current leaders in the Kremlin destined to lead the transition, a bit like what happened in 1991».
The lies about NATO
But what do you answer to 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 expanded eastward? “Nonsense and falsehood. At the time of the Soviet disintegration, the leaders of Moscow agreed to let Ukraine become independent, guided by the conviction that it would then be the Ukrainians themselves who would ask 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 indicating any commitment in that sense. Even the memoirs of Gorbachev’s interpreter never mention this. Furthermore, the sacrosanct principle of self-determination of peoples. After the end of the USSR it was our populations who en masse asked NATO to free them from the threat from Moscow. 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 sufficient to understand our reasons, confirmed by the tragic attack a year ago».