Ukraine, from Aristophanes to Kissinger | Opinion

The economic and financial system has become global while political power continues to be fundamentally based on the nation state. This contradiction is the fundamental cause that “the world order proclaimed and established by the West is at a turning point”, which allows us to predict that it will not be the predominant one for a long time. This is how Henry Kissinger thinks and has publicized it in articles, interviews, and his latest book, World order. Kissinger was Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Nixon and Ford. Author of the establishment of relations with China and an expert in Soviet diplomacy, at 98 years of age, he maintains much more lucid positions than most current Western leaders, at least as regards the geostrategic positioning of their countries. Freed from all submission to the language of political correctness, he has repeatedly expressed his conviction that no Russian ruler, whatever his ideological persuasion, will allow a foreign military power to establish itself just over 500 kilometers from Moscow. Reading the history of the largest country on Earth is enough to verify the foundation of this statement.

The crisis surrounding Ukraine is part of an international scenario conditioned by the emergence of China as a world power, the end of the american pax and the deterioration of the European political project. Western pronouncements in the face of the threat of an imminent Russian invasion promise a response from the United States and its allies that would result in “serious consequences.” In no case have these reprisals been specified. It is excluded that they are military, although some countries have sent weapons to Kiev, and economic sanctions are threatened. The paralysis of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline or the expulsion of the Russian system from the international payment system are among the most cited. If carried out, the consequences would be very serious, of course, but not only for Russia, but also for the European allies of the United States, dependent on the supply of Russian gas and with financial and commercial relations of enormous depth. The Kremlin, moreover, has at all times denied that it intends to invade the neighboring country. In fact, it already did so in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and continues to support the Ukrainian rebels of Russian origin who are waging a civil war in the east of the country. The sanctions applied for these events have seriously damaged Moscow, although not enough to make it give up its efforts. Incidentally, they have led to a greater rapprochement of the Kremlin with China.

Last weekend there was hopeful news regarding a diplomatic solution to the crisis. That was after stock markets plummeted, the verbal emphasis of the accusations grew, and troop movements began in the area. In the opinion of many, coinciding with the general desire, it is unlikely that the announced invasion will take place. Not even a small incursion, as President Biden suggested for the scandal of the Kiev Government. Ruled out a new war in Eastern Europe, when the wounds of the conflicts in the Balkans that dismembered the former Yugoslavia are still bleeding, the need to establish a new world order that can no longer be based on the bipolar strategy of the Cold War will remain. nor in the unquestioned authority of the United States. The construction of this new multilateral order will require a great exercise of pragmatism on the part of its leaders, the establishment of treaties and agreements that guarantee the application of international law in the resolution of conflicts and the assumption by democratic countries of coexistence with cultures, values ​​and social structures that are not consistent with those they represent. This does not imply abdicating our moral principles, nor the indispensable support for freedom fighters who suffer repression, persecution, imprisonment and exile in so many regions, starting with Russia. But the maintenance of world peace requires not only the legitimacy of power but also its balance, which is all the more necessary and urgent the more the possession of nuclear weapons proliferates.