The war in the heart of Europe started last year by the Russians with theinvasion of Ukraine she has screwed herself into a tug of war that only suggests that it will continue to be long and painful. Meanwhile everything is fluid and uncertain on the ground, Russians and Ukrainians fight meter by meter in the Donbass, now taking a village, now leaving it. Even the number of victims it changes from time to time.
Those in Ukraine amount to 20 or 7 civilians, depending on whether the EU or the UN counts the dead; and 60 thousand or 12 thousand among the military if the numbers are given by the government of Moscow or that of Kiev. Just as the figures regarding Russian victims are different: they are over 120 according to Kiev, not even 6 for Moscow.
The number of refugees however it is not disputed. Says the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, which are over 6 million people, the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, most of whom fled to Poland. And the economic disaster into which Ukraine has plunged is undeniable: according to figures provided by the World Bank last October, the direct and indirect damages caused by the war are equal to 350 billion dollars, more than 1,5 times the GDP of the 2021.
This is the official photo of the results of the first year of war, crystallized on Tuesday by the speeches of Biden from Warsaw and Putin from Moscow, in which each leader reproposed his position in the conflict, without taking a step forward to end it.
We talk about it with an acute student of foreign policy, Alexander Politi, director of the NATO Defense College Foundation, professor of geopolitics and intelligence at Sioi, the school that trains Italian diplomats, adviser to four defense ministers, careful observer of international political structures.
Professor Politi, the war in Ukraine seems to have swept away in one fell swoop the rhetoric of the "new wars" of the last thirty years, the "surgical" ones, at "low intensity", at "zero cost": what scenario are we facing 12 months after the Russian invasion?
“It's a World War I scenario, where people die non-stop and there's no light at the end of the tunnel. True, there was some pretty bloody fighting in the Donbass, with some Russian successes, but no spectacular breakthroughs. On the other hand, Prigozhin himself, the head of the Wagner mercenaries, said that the situation on the front is very difficult. However, some considerations can be made. The first: from a strategic point of view, Putin has already lost the war. He lost it when he failed to crush Ukraine in the first days of the invasion that he considered lightning, because, as we have seen, he found a compact resistance that he did not expect. And for the same reason, Ukraine has already won it, because it has demonstrated the solidity of its national and civic sense. However, from a military point of view, this resulted in the fact that after the first failed mechanized attacks, we moved on to digging the trenches quite soon. And he waits for us. Scenario from the First World War, in fact”.
But if the weapons necessary for new assaults arrive to the Ukrainians, won't the situation change? President Zelensky is convinced of this.
“Can I be frank? This tank story was highly symbolic. Let's start from the fact that there are few tanks that will arrive in Ukraine for now. 88 have been promised, let's even say 100, but even if they were located in the right places on the ground and used in a perfect way, it is said that they will solve the outcome of the war. I know that now the announcements of the figures push the numbers to 300 (note that the US VII Corps in Kuwait alone has fielded more than 500 M1A1 Abrams to achieve decisive results, of which 355 in a single armored division). Secondly: the wagons in question require important logistics, without which there is no progress. And American tanks are the least suitable because they are very complicated to maintain. Also, Biden will have them built because he doesn't want to dent his own arsenals. In other words, he thinks, as is obvious, first of the security of his country, then of that of Ukraine. A very rough estimate calculates from 9 to 12 months between production, training and redeployment in the theatre. What will be the actual training time? Good question".
Where does this reasoning lead us?
“An assessment of the situation leads one to think that Zelensky can ask for arms for an offensive with hardly decisive results (since he is also forbidden to wage war on enemy territory), knowing, however, that he should think about cashing in. Ukrainians know that the recovery of territory cannot come with unlimited sacrifice of soldiers. If history can offer hints, just think that Piedmont did not achieve the unification of Italy in a single war. After the first war lost in 1848 it took more than ten years for the construction of the unitary perspective. And if you want another historical example that concerns us: Rome became the capital of Italy twenty-four years after the First Roman Republic. Just as war plans are made for every contingency, so it is wise to make negotiation plans even for unwelcome situations. If the war were to come to a break, which territory is most pressing to recover? One can imagine what connects Russia to Crimea because Ukraine cannot have only Odessa as a single outlet to the sea and because in this way the situation is as close as possible to the status quo ante. This break can be used for essential things: rebuilding vital parts of the economy (demining arable lands for example), reinforcing the armed forces and preparing the conditions for then entering Europe. Ukraine's future may be very different from its troubled and uncertain past and horrific present, because, in principle, it has chosen the camp of democracies”.
They could enter Europe just the same: didn't they gain a quicker route with the war?
“I believe that entry into Europe is not, rightly or wrongly, a matter of blood: the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, including the Bosnians and Kosovars as attacked, have paid this heavy price and are not yet included. All the founding countries of Europe did not found it for past bloodshed, but for future and lasting peace, on solid values that still today do not always seem to be shared between member states. Promising shortcuts, knowing that the concrete times for assimilation of the acquis cannot be realistically compressed, means exposing candidates to potentially bitter disappointments. It takes ten years just for the conditions in which the country finds itself. And the war has only aggravated the enormous problems that Ukraine had even before the conflict, from the point of view of economic, social and democratic rules. We have controversies over past hasty enlargements, we have concrete problems of reforming the European system: I believe that Ukraine deserves to enter a Europe that is not a dysfunctional ATM, perhaps not so rich anymore”.
What are the interests of hasty enlargement?
“The objective is clear: to weaken the entire European structure. Europe is a fragile construction, which faces considerable tension every time it embarks on new countries, each with its own issues. I don't think the situation of a member state which takes European money but despises Europe and its values, or which pursues special relations with large countries without a European concert, is useful to anyone. It must be understood that the greatest risks reside in long-standing mental and political, Soviet or old-nationalist, sometimes with authoritarian tendencies; it would be paradoxical to fight against authoritarian regimes outside the Union and not prevent them inside”.
What role is the USA playing in this conflict?
“I'm saying that beyond the exciting statements of the last few days, the Americans don't forget that this war is less important to them than China. Of course, there is the emotion and also the weight of an important part of American public opinion, the one that shouts: come on, one last effort for the brave Ukrainians! More than understandable because it happens to us too. However, in certain environments there is still a certain allergy to Europe, considered not truly virile and warlike like others: a mere axiom and prejudice. Unfortunately, these environments also influence a serious and concrete debate on the war, even if Biden has a very clear idea of how to meet a healthy transatlantic link (as with his choices with Chancellor Scholz on wagons) ”.
Put like this, peace I understand is a foreign word.
“The word peace is a big, important, difficult word, but not foreign, especially if it is based on a cold analysis of the situation to keep the essentials together. This war is bleeding Europe dry. It would be appropriate to talk about numbers, but it is enough for us to remember that we pay the cost of financial support to the Ukrainians, the cost of our arms supplies, the cost of inflation generated by the peaks of speculation and maneuvers on energy assets, the cost of a loss of manufacturing competitiveness because gas costs much more. In short, we are the turkey at Christmas dinner. Unfortunately, this war does not correspond to many of Europe's concrete interests, nor, I fear, to Ukraine's future sustainability. A Europe without money is of little help to Kiev”.
How does it come out?
“It is a very difficult situation, but not impossible to deal with, with or without the Chinese peace plan. The Americans behind the scenes give some, but not unlimited, support and our Ukrainian partners know that is a fact, as they know that the Europeans go the extra mile. Much lies in the Ukrainian counter-offensive, but it would be imprudent to rely on it alone, as even American generals suggest. The question is stark: why bleed to death if perhaps the pause in the conflict can allow for an initial important recovery, provided that the Russian adversary sees his interest? Ukraine must recover everything, even in the supreme interest of the security of NATO and Europe, but unfortunately it is not certain that it will be immediately. A long-term strategy is better than a war, as if there were no tomorrow".
