The month began with a focus on the second peace negotiation meeting between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul, scheduled for last Monday, June 2. However, the commotion began over the weekend. On Saturday, May 31, Russia attacked several Ukrainian locations with drones and missiles, and, to the surprise of Russian security services, on Sunday, June 1, the Ukrainian Security Services launched the so-called "Operation Spider Web." This consisted of a drone and missile attack against Russian air forces at several positions in Russian territory, including those far from the Ukrainian border, causing significant damage to civilian infrastructure and strategic aircraft.
Given this scenario, Monday's meeting seemed ineffective and peace seemed far off, as it turned out. The only achievement was a new prisoner exchange and the repatriation of some Ukrainian children. Recall that at the first peace meeting, held on May 16, both nations had also agreed to a prisoner exchange. We can conclude there was no real peace negotiation.
The question that arises is: Is there any interest in achieving peace? Clearly, the few and brief peace talks, the continued military attacks, and the bellicose rhetoric only reflect an escalation of the war. Just yesterday, June 6, Russia responded strongly to the attack it received on Sunday. This has been the dynamic for almost four years, coupled with the progressive occupation of Ukrainian territories.
Some define this war as a conflict between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine as the stage. The truth is that wars are business, with economic and political interests at stake; the war between Russia and Ukraine is no different; each actor is pursuing their own gain, and none seems to benefit from peace at this point.
President Vladimir Putin is determined to advance his seizure of Ukrainian territories and prevent NATO from advancing near his borders. So far, he has the advantage militarily, and as time goes on, he will be able to make progress. The interest in occupying territory up to the Dnieper River and depriving Ukraine of access to the Black Sea is well known.
For its part, Ukraine, as the Russian side considers it, is not in favour of peace since President Volodymyr Zelensky favours war to maintain his hold on power; the political cost of withdrawing from the war is high for him. For his part, he wants to recover the lost territories.
US President Donald Trump is a politician and businessman who is focusing his strategies on strengthening his country. What strengthens his country? Having Europe pay for its security and defence. This way, the US arms industry will be maintained, and the money the US forgoes will be available for its domestic economy.
General, Mark Rutte, recently indicated that the Alliance is stronger than the Napoleonic empire. Positions in Europe diverge, and the leaders who, on the one hand, support Trump in his call for peace and, on the other, lead the warlike discourse are the United Kingdom, France, Poland and Germany.
As for Prime Minister Keir Starmer , for the United Kingdom, and President Emmanuel Macron, for France, have questionable popularity in their countries, which they may be seeking to compensate for with outstanding performance on the international stage.
Regarding Poland, Karol Nawrocki became the new president of the country, who opposes Tusk's progressive policy. While the new president has expressed support for Ukraine, we'll see whether the difference in political leanings has any impact on Poland's future position.
The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who won a disputed election, has taken a firm stance in support of Ukraine. Chancellor Merz also pursues his own goal of repositioning Germany as a leading military and economic power on the continent, and the current situation could be the ideal way to pull the German economy out of stagnation.
Europe's role in three years of war without any progress raised questions and led to Europe's uncomfortable exclusion from international meetings on the war that took place in the first months of this year.
Today, NATO is also pursuing its objective. The hasty and costly rearmament plan pursued by NATO in the face of the supposed and imminent threat from Russia, with which it seeks to capture the not inconsiderable 5% of the GDP of the Alliance's members, is especially justified in times of war, regardless of Europe's need to modernize its military and war equipment and gain independence from the US.
Without forgetting the fact that a war with Russia always brings up the nuclear scenario, is Europe preparing for the Russian threat or using war to justify its lucrative rearmament plan? Many analysts agree on this point and assert that Europe is not currently interested in peace, but neither is it interested in reaching war. Others believe that such war spending will inevitably lead Europe to a war sooner or later.
The EU insists on applying sanctions packages—they already have 17 and are preparing a new one—betting that increased "pressure" could finally bring down Russia. Meanwhile, we have seen Russia seek strategies to maintain its economy and strategic alliances by expanding into Asia, while Europe continues to buy Russian energy.
The reality is that there is no path to peace in sight. A NATO summit will be held at the end of the month, which will have to define a strategy, taking into account the implementation of the rearmament plan, under this new scenario of escalating war and diminished US involvement. There seem to be more questions than answers surrounding this conflict, but time is running out for Ukraine.
By Iris Mujica
Comments
Post a Comment