Jorge Dezcallar de Mazarredo He is a diplomat, former director of the CNI and weekly columnist for this newspaper. Was general director for twelve years at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has also been ambassador to Morocco, the Holy See and the United States. Dezcallar presented On Wednesday his latest worka: The end of an era. Ukraine: the war that accelerates everything, where shared his concerns about this conflict.
What can we find in your latest book and what was the motivation behind your choice to write about the war in Ukraine?
In the pages of this book is the explanation of the events in Ukraine, an extremely complex situation to understand. When the invasion occurred The North American intelligence services anticipated the event, warning weeks in advance. Despite Putin’s claims that nothing would happen, the reality was different. The situation was more reminiscent of the Battle of Borodino from Napoleon’s time than a 21st century war. Initially, I started writing this book for my own understandingsince it seemed to me the existence of a war of territorial expansion in the 21st century is incomprehensible in Europe. The decision to take notes during this process ended up leading to the creation of this work.
Has Putin always thought that Ukraine belongs to Russia?
Putin has no doubt that Ukraine is part of Russia and he made it very clear in an extensive article titled About the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainianss, published on July 12, 2021, in which affirmed without a doubt that Ukrainians are part of the great Russian nation and that its territory was unjustly separated from Russia, first by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s, and then by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
How do you address this situation in the book?
The first chapter of my research is titled «Ukraine exists». Here I explain Lenin’s creation of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic and Some Russians today maintain that if Ukraine was created by Lenin, Putin could also put an end to it.. I explain why this is not true, followed by a analysis of the difficult breakup of the Soviet Unionproblems with other participants, misunderstandings with NATO, the lack of written commitments from the West, the destabilization of Donbass and Crimea.
In his book he also explains how a series of events contributed to Putin choosing to initiate the invasion.
There were a series of events that led to the start of the invasion. In a strategic moment, Putin observed a combination of favorable circumstances: a new chancellor with no experience in Germany with a government coalition with very different sensitivities regarding Russia, elections in France, United States marked by the consequences of the withdrawal from Afghanistancalled by Biden as a “Botched withdrawal”, and Boris Johnson busy with his parties. Putin perceived this situation as the perfect opportunity to disrupt the European security architecturewhich constitutes the inherent gravity of this war.
«In the West we tend to think that everyone is against Russia, and that is not true»
So, does this war go much further?
This conflict transcends the mere territorial occupation in the heart of Europe; It goes further by calling into question the order that was established in 1945 at the end of World War II. At that time, the victors redistributed global power according to their interests and established norms that shaped geopolitics according to the principles of Western civilization. Currently, countries led by China argue that the world has experienced significant changes and that institutions need to be modified. This war challenges the structure established in 1945, indicating the need to adapt certain aspects to current reality.
How is Europe helping Ukraine?
We have provided Ukraine with three fundamental elements: financing, weapons and an often overlooked resource, intelligence.a, which is of vital importance. However, These aids have been granted with the intention of avoiding defeat, which differs significantly from achieving victory. Recently, someone told me that Zelensky doesn’t stop crying, and although it is understandable, he has reasons for it. Really, We are providing help so that you can stay afloat and survive.r, but not enough to allow him to strike a decisive blow and win the war.
Therefore, is it necessary to continue providing help?
Yeah, Ukraine can’t lose y Europe must remain committed to sending assistance. Macron has recently mentioned his willingness to sending soldiers to Ukraine is outrageous and a violation of the principle of non-belligerency. Currently, the Russians already perceive that we are violating this principle by sending highly sophisticated weapons, but the deployment of soldiers would break it in an obvious and manifest way before the entire world. Breaking this non-belligerency would lead to a conflict between Russia and NATOand a confrontation of this magnitude would be classified as the third World war.
“The situation would have to deteriorate further for the parties involved to be willing to make concessions.”
Why are some countries reluctant to provide assistance?
In We in the West tend to think that everyone is against Russia, and that is not true. To a large extent, the third world takes the position that the dispute is between rich Europeans and they should resolve it among themselves; They do not wish to antagonize either side. Many countries do not impose sanctions because they should not be established by an individual country; rather, they must be promoted by an international entity with the capacity to do so, such as the United Nations. However, these are blocked, either by American considerations in the case of Gaza or by Russian considerations in the case of Ukraine. However, there are many countries that avoid applying sanctions against Russia, do not dare to publicly challenge it and continue to buy oil from it.
Has Europe made mistakes?
Yes, he made significant mistakes, something we can now understand clearly, although in the past it was difficult to perceive. Europe has put its security in the hands of the United States, its energy in the hands of Russia and its trade in the hands of China and it turns out that none of the three are trustworthy. We now face the possibility of Donald Trump returning to power, which would be a problem. [La entrevista tuvo lugar el miércoles, previo al conocimiento de que una jueza ha prohibido a Trump participar en las elecciones primarias de Illinois debido a su implicación en el asalto al Capitolio. Aunque Trump tiene la intención de apelar].
How could it affect Donald Trump winning?
They make my hair stand on end. I think it would be harmfulfirst for the United States, given the considerable impact it has caused on the country’s image, democracy and the balance of powers. Under his leadership, the United States has ceased to be a reliable ally. Trump advocated unpredictability, and he certainly achieved it. Neither his allies nor his adversaries could foresee his actions. He recently stated that he would resolve the situation in Ukraine within 24 hoursbut his approach It would probably mean backing Putin at the expense of Ukrainian lives.
Returning to Ukraine, knowing that the book proposes several endings for this war, which scenario is the most likely?
In my opinion, The situation would have to deteriorate further for the parties involved to be willing to make the necessary concessions in any negotiations. Negotiation involves compromises and concessions. If one of the parties firmly believes that they will win without being willing to give up anything, the negotiating process is hindered. From my perspective, envisioning Ukraine giving up its occupied territory or Russia giving back Crimea seems unlikely. A possible way out could be a Korean-style armisticewhere both sides maintain their maximum objectives but agree to suspend them along a line of separation of forces, along with a commitment not to launch attacks beyond that line.
Do you think this type of agreement would be effective?
In this case the armistice would be very unstable.. In the case of Korea, it works because both sides have the support of United States, which guarantees compliance with the agreements. In this particular conflict, that dynamic would not be replicated, since external actors They wouldn’t have the same influence. However, at this moment, I consider it to be a possible way out. A frozen conflict in the heart of Europe that is not good for anyone.
So what could happen to Russia?
Russia’s victory would not be desirable, since it could become a shadowed power, aggressive and tempted to expandEven protect speakers in Estonia or Latvia. On the other hand, a defeated and humiliated Russia could adopt a revanchist stance, which would not be positive either. In my opinion, Russia may face a period of isolation and self-reflectionn. She will be forced to stew in her own sauce, which will be detrimental to the Russians. Gradually, it will fall more and more under the influence of China, a situation that I consider unfavorable for both Russia and Europe. However, this is the perspective I see in the short term.
Current media attention is putting more focus on other conflicts and Ukraine is taking second place.
In my opinion, The current conflict in Gaza represents an unexpected opportunity for Putin. The confrontation in Ukraine has gone to the third or fourth page of the newspapers, and at this moment, resource allocation, if any, becomes more complicated. Although both are complex challenges, they are completely different. While the case of Ukraine implies a transgression of the European security structure, The conflict in Gaza is the result of 56 years of suffocating occupation.
2024-03-02 23:22:51
#Jorge #Dezcallar #conflict #Russia #NATO #classified #World #War #III
