Unfortunately, wars are not a Hollywood movie, where the good guys or those who think they are good guys win. Conflicts, the real ones, which do not take place on set, often end in the worst possible way and unfortunately I believe that the one in Ukraine is among them.
Donald Trump’s success in America seems to bring a truce in Ukraine. I don’t know if the new president of the United States will keep the promises attributed to him during the election campaign (“If I am elected I will stop the war in twenty-four hours”), but it is certain that the end of the conflict on the margins of Europe is one of the priorities of the new occupant of the White House, if only because Kiev’s resistance to the Russian invasion has so far cost the United States around sixty billion dollars. Therefore, many expect the 47th American president to turn off the taps, imposing if not peace, at least a ceasefire.
The prospect, however, alarms those who see in the armistice a surrender to the aggressor, i.e. the loss of the territories occupied by the Russians, with a sort of freezing of the two fronts, without a reconquest and expulsion of the invader. “Are we abandoning Ukraine?” was asked last week Corriere della Sera. In an article signed by the former director of Republic Carlo Verdelli, the daily newspaper on Via Solferino, summarized the scenario created by the American elections as a turnaround by the West.
After deceiving the Ukrainians of support without any ifs or buts, suddenly the so-called world of democracies would appear tired, ready to abandon Volodymyr Zelensky and his people to their fate. «One of the solutions that is emerging, thanks to a constant advance of the invading troops» wrote Verdelli, «would foresee the substantial victory of the aggressor and the more or less disguised humiliation of the attacked, with Russia annexing the 20 percent of the Ukrainian territory conquered, in defiance of international law, and with Zelensky, or whoever for him, who would undertake to withdraw the request to join NATO”. For the editorialist of Courierall this would represent not only the end of Kiev’s freedom and independence, but also the conclusion of that world order that emerged in years of substantial peace. And above all, it would certify the weakness of Western diplomacies and democracies, sweeping away the rhetoric that has accompanied us since February 24, 2022, when Vladimir Putin’s troops boldly crossed the border into Ukraine. In the days that followed, there was no head of government who did not swear eternal support to Kiev, promising unlimited aid, even ready to sacrifice a few degrees less inside the house in order to cut the oil revenues with which Moscow fed its war machine.
However, almost three years after the start of the conflict, all the certainties with which the West predicted the collapse of Russia have been swept away and today we are faced with a bitter reality. I agree with almost all of my colleague’s reflections Corriere della Serawhen he says that we are betraying the Ukrainians and also that we are giving away to the aggressor at the expense of the attacked. It is true that this represents a defeat for Western democracies and also the end of an equilibrium that emerged after the Second World War (but perhaps it would be better to place it after the collapse of the Soviet Union). However, what is the alternative to all this? Continue a war that according to the New York Times has already caused a million victims and which promises to cause more without even allowing a glimpse of a victory for Ukraine? The reality with which we are called to deal lies in an excerpt from Verdelli’s editorial, where he says that the solution of the truce that is emerging is dictated “by the constant advancement of the invading troops”.
Not a day goes by without bad news arriving for Ukraine from the front. Putin’s troops are advancing in the center of Donbass, but also in the south and also in the north. In Kursk, a Russian region that Kiev invaded last summer, hoping to then exchange the occupied areas for some Ukrainian territory, Zelensky’s soldiers are surrounded and faced with 50,000 soldiers, double or perhaps triple their number. It is the progress of the war that imposes the urgency of a truce. If we had tried to reach an agreement two years ago, the humiliation of the attacked would probably have been less painful today. But if the armistice were reached in a year, perhaps it would be worse and those attacked would be forced to cede other pieces of the country to the aggressors.
Unfortunately, wars are not a Hollywood film, where the good guys or those who consider themselves good almost always win. Conflicts, the real ones, which do not take place on set, often end in the worst possible way and unfortunately I believe that the one in Ukraine is among them. It’s not a question of abandoning Kiev, as Verdelli asked, it’s a question of abandoning hypocrisy and rhetoric. And above all the idea that the story always ends in the best way.
