How to stop Putin’s war?
The analysis by Francesco D'Arrigo, director of the Italian Institute for Strategic Studies
A multiplicity of media and authoritative analysts are judging negatively the progress of Russian military operations in Ukraine. This is because according to them, the Russian army would have failed to achieve the goal of an immediate victory within 24-48 hours, with what is journalistically referred to as a "blitzkrieg", achieved by the collapse of the Ukrainian armed forces and the consequent / contemporary collapse of the Ukrainian institutional political summit.
From a military point of view, a "blitzkrieg" is certainly the six-day war (June 5-10, 1967) which saw Israel and the neighboring nations of Egypt, Syria and Jordan against each other, which, due to the surprise effect, turned into a clear and "instant" Israeli victory despite the numerical superiority of the Arab defenders. At the end of the conflict, Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria. The political-strategic outcome of the six-day war, the legal condition of the occupied territories and the related refugee problem still heavily influence the geopolitical situation of the Middle East.
Not even the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur war, fought from 6 to 25 October 1973 between an Arab coalition, consisting mainly of Egypt and Syria against Israel, can not be compared to Russia's military offensive against Ukraine.
In any case, after only 8 days of conflict, it is not possible to carry out reliable analyzes on Russian war action, even if it were a "blitzkrieg" because they would be based on incomplete data.
Certainly, the action of the Russian army cannot be considered a failure, on the contrary it is entirely consistent with the Russian military doctrine and with Putin's strategy still in full swing, which aims to annihilate the Ukrainian armed forces, concentrate troops around the urban centers to siege the cities in (a long?) and to oppose the urban guerrilla operations of the civilian population. The Russian one is a progressive military tool that is causing thousands of deaths and at the same time inflicting enormous psychological pressure on Western public opinion. The humanitarian crisis caused by the inexorable advance of the Russian army is a very powerful weapon that Putin is using against Europe, apparently less violent than indiscriminate aerial bombardments but which causes devastating and lasting effects on European states.
The humanitarian crisis with millions of refugees fleeing the war and forced to seek asylum from Europe represents Putin's response to the harsh economic sanctions inflicted on Russia by the West.
To us Westerners it may seem irrational but the strategy of transforming it into a pro-Russian state like Aljaksandr Lukašėnka's Belarus, or destroying it and turning it into a "failed state", is clearly identifiable in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine , that is, a subject of international law that loses its independence and legal personality, necessary to exercise an autonomous power in the sphere of international relations and the right to self-determination of its people. A devastated state with no infrastructure in which it no longer makes sense to make significant investments, apart from low-capital-intensity ones, which would represent a constant threat to European peace and international security.
A failed state within the democratic, developed and civilized Europe can become a new geopolitical paradigm but above all a geoeconomic one.
The West absolutely cannot afford to lose Ukraine, it must urgently develop a diplomatic policy of peace, by force, to force President Putin to a ceasefire and begin real negotiations for a possible agreement (bearing in mind that may not be).
A possible negotiation would certainly include four main issues.
The first is Ukraine's accession to NATO ; the second concerns nuclear weapons; the third is the future of the Donbass area; and the fourth is Crimea.
NATO is the most delicate and important issue from a strategic point of view, both for the Russians and for Ukraine. Ukraine believes, rightly or wrongly, that NATO guarantees its security (even if the support they received from NATO has by no means achieved this). Russia believes NATO in Ukraine is an unsustainable threat to its security. How to solve this problem?
The most immediate but at the same time most difficult decision to reach a solution could be Ukraine's renunciation of applying for NATO membership. But not even suffering the consequences of a horrible war, Ukraine seems to be willing to make this renunciation, and not even NATO has pulled back.
Is there a way out?
One solution that could be put at the negotiating table is for NATO to give Ukraine a defense assurance, under which NATO would come to Ukraine's aid if it were attacked. But to reassure Russia, NATO would not deploy troops, weapons in Ukraine, nor would it try to convert Ukraine's military infrastructure into the NATO system.
NATO, of course, cannot directly take part in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, but some sort of proposal can be agreed (no NATO bases, infrastructure etc.) in Ukraine, leaving aside Ukraine's application for membership, but securing it one. special status under article 5 (collective security) of the NATO treaty.
The equally complicated issue concerns nuclear weapons and Ukraine. Officially Ukraine must give up building and distributing nuclear weapons it could develop, but more importantly Ukraine should agree not to allow other nations (NATO or otherwise) to install nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil.
An agreement on the presence of nuclear weapons appears absolutely essential for Russia, which has always declared that it feels threatened by the possible deployment of nuclear weapons and warheads in Ukraine.
Perhaps the simplest solution would be for the Donbass, which the Minsk agreements saw as autonomous regions of Ukraine. Since Russia has just recognized the two secessionist areas (Donetsk and Luhansk) as independent states, it is now more difficult to find a shared solution. However, a formula would be possible if the two breakaway regions remained independent until their status as Ukrainian autonomous areas was recognized, at which point it would be politically and economically convenient for them to become autonomous parts of Ukraine, rather than falling into orbit. of the Russian regime.
Finally, there is the question of the Crimea. It is doubted that this can be resolved in these negotiations, especially since Russia has already annexed Crimea. There could be several solutions, such as a hybrid deal with Ukraine, but the Russians are unlikely to even want to bring any Crimea-related issues to the negotiating table. In any case, solving the Crimean problem is absolutely secondary to the possibility of stopping the ongoing war.
For the EU, however, the question that can no longer be postponed to elaborate a new model for European security remains unresolved. The geopolitical changes taking place imply a deployment of resources, conventional and nuclear forces and armaments to guarantee a defense and security system that this crisis has shown to be non-existent in post-Soviet Europe. A renewed focus and a responsible role of the United States, which is the main guarantor of security in Europe, is needed, especially now that relations have seriously deteriorated and it will be hard and difficult to try to work out a new global security framework with Russia.
Nonetheless, before Putin falls and takes the rest of the world with him, Macron, Scholz and Draghi, along with Biden, must urgently find ways to stop his war.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/come-fermare-la-guerra-di-putin/ on Thu, 03 Mar 2022 15:48:49 +0000.