Eduardo González
The Fundación Alternativas considers that the EU should contribute, when the “unjustifiable and condemnable” Russian invasion of Ukraine concludes, to create a new European security architecture “that does not exclude Russia” and that avoids the mistakes that, in the opinion of this organization, have caused, “that not justified”, the war waged last February 24 by Vladimir Putin’s regime.
“The Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory last February 24 is unjustifiable and condemnable from all points of view,” begins the Declaration-Memorandum of the Fundación Alternativas on the war in Ukraine and the future of the European Union. A European alternative to the war in Ukraine, published on March 31. The invasion “represents a flagrant violation of international law and human rights, as well as a great political mistake by the person most responsible for the beginning of this conflict: Vladimir Putin and his government”. Therefore, “we Europeans repudiate this action and trust that European governments and societies will contribute with their actions and demands to put an end to the war as soon as possible”, it continues.
According to the Fundación Alternativas, “the Russian invasion and the war have causes -not justification- that go back a long way”. “The war is the expression of a double fundamental collision: geopolitical and ideological. On the one hand, the possibility of NATO expansion into former Soviet countries (Georgia, Ukraine) generated a reaction from the Russian side, which has always demanded neutrality. On the other hand, it reflects the clash on Ukrainian soil between two conflicting visions: one democratic and European, and the other of authoritarian bias embodied by Putin’s regime,” the document says.
“On both geopolitical and ideological levels, the EU has not managed the shift of part of Ukrainian society and politics towards Europe very well in recent years. Sometimes Russia has been unnecessarily inconvenienced or not listened to enough. At other times too many unfulfillable promises have been made to Ukraine. All these circumstances must be taken into account in our decisions in the immediate future,” it continues.
For all these reasons, the think tank considers that the EU, whose position – like those of Spain and NATO – in the face of this conflict has been “essentially correct”, could “emerge strengthened from this crisis if it adopts a position based on maintaining political unity, especially in terms of sanctions and aid to Ukraine”, and should “try to influence the resolution of the conflict” and “prevent the war from metastasizing or becoming chronic”.
To this end, the foundation considers the role of France and Germany to be very important due to the “interlocution” that both countries maintain with Putin, given that the latter “does not recognize the EU as an interlocutor”. Besides, “the mediation support of China and democracies such as India, or the active involvement of the UN Secretary General, would be highly desirable”, it adds.
Two confronting blocs or a multipolar order “that does not push Russia into a corner”
Apart from this, the document considers that the EU should “have an active role in the post-war period both in the reconstruction of Ukraine (political, material, humanitarian)” and in the approach of “the bases for the post-war period”, promoting in this case “a new security architecture in Europe that does not exclude Russia”.
In this regard, the Fundación Alternativas warns that the future international order faces “two scenarios”. On the one hand, “the crystallization of two clearly confronted blocs”, with a Western bloc led by the US in the political, economic and technological fields and by NATO in the defensive field, in which the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and Australia would stand out; and with a second bloc “of countries with a history and authoritarian reality led by China, in alliance with Putin and perhaps other Asian and African countries”. This competition, “which has already opened up,” is reflected in the struggle for influence in Africa, Latin America and on the European continent itself. “In fact, the US seems to have complemented its strategy towards the Indian-Pacific with a greater presence in Europe,” the report notes.
The other possible scenario for the coming years would be “the maintenance of a more multipolar order, which does not corner Russia” and which avoids “a close alliance” of this country with China or India, “which are now cultivating a certain ambiguity”. It would be a matter of “an international order that overcomes the instability we are suffering, and that recovers globality,” says the Foundation. “For the latter scenario to prevail, we must be able to build a European security architecture that does not return to the division that Europe has already experienced, nor to a new iron curtain,” warns Alternativas. To this end, a European Union with an “autonomous and strengthened role” would be “essential”, it continues. “That is to say, a true Political Union,” it adds.
