Would you like to support me so I can continuously improve?
Feb. 22, 2023
On February 22, 2023, it was one year since the outbreak of the war between these nations. The reasons for the start of hostilities are something about which there is a lot of information going around everywhere and about which there is a relative consensus. Basically, the fear of Moscow about the gain ground of the European Union in Ukraine. A territory in which both blocks have many interests. After a year has passed since a bloody war that has already claimed more than 100,000 deaths, including civilians, the question that we have all asked ourselves at least once during this time is, why isn't the war over yet?
The question is partly motivated by a widespread social imaginary, a collective belief, especially in our Western societies, about Russia. Most of us took it for granted that the Russian Federation was a very fierce rival nation, capable of ending any conflict quickly, given the great capacity of its arms industry. By the way, we must not forget that Russia is one of the main arms exporters in the world, second only to the United States.
The question is also constantly asked in our daily conversations to refer to NATO, and it's great military power. Most of us also believe that NATO forces are enough to take on the historic but archaic Red Army. Although it is also true that we are fully aware that a direct intervention by NATO in the war could be the trigger for a potential "World War Third". If the member countries of this association decided to act to end the war, another war, even more intense and cruel, would begin.
An imperial logic
In order to answer this question, it is important to stop and reflect on the true motivations of international conflicts and be fully aware that, generally, it is about defending the interests of various human groups placed in positions of power. To defend their interests, they are willing to act in a certain way and have the necessary tools to initiate forceful actions in defense of said interests. A war conflict, for example. They also have the power to plunge the economies of entire regions into the deepest crises. The so-called "economic war" is the main mechanism of pressure and, normally, it is put into operation when it is necessary to ensure the fulfillment of specific interests within the framework of diplomacy. Although indeed, it can be considered as a strategy that is part of warlike actions.
The putting into operation of this “diplomatic” pressure mechanism became visible to all of us after the outbreak of the war. A clear example of the use of this "diplomatic" strategy were the various "sanctions" applied to Russia since the beginning of the war.
Now, very often these human groups in power act following an imperial logic. Yes, the logic that moved the actions of the great emperors of antiquity, only that in the middle of the 21st century. It is a way of ensuring the fulfillment of heterogeneous interests. Said “interests” are generally economic.
In other words, this imperial logic is closely linked to a mercantile logic. And these diverse "interests" in conflict are fundamentally the basis of any great confrontation. It is a struggle of heterogeneous interests in which each sector seeks to achieve their maximum satisfaction.
In our times what prevails are international democratic relations, so this fight is normally carried out in the arena of diplomacy. The essential work of diplomacy is to guarantee the peaceful solution of differences that may arise between States. Basically, it is some kind of pacific insurance for coexistence in a globalized and interdependent international system. This situation has been abruptly interrupted with the outbreak of this armed conflict.
The problem is that, when the interests are so heterogeneous that it is practically impossible to lay the foundations for an agreement between the parties, these interests must be defended in another arena. And that is how the great armed confrontations begin. The struggle of interests always implies the existence of winners and losers, and it doesn’t matter if this fight is produced under the strict framework of diplomacy or carried out on the battlefield, the winner always takes it all.
When the struggle of interests becomes a war, the implications for the existence of these two sectors (winners and losers) reach unthinkable levels of costs that end up affecting not only the sectors in conflict but also the rest of the population.
War was always a very costly phenomenon. But since these great actors are moved mainly by a logic that considers human casualties as functional, the only thing that really matters is victory at any cost. As we’ve said before, the winner takes all. The biggest riot for the most powerful nation.
What interests are we talking about?
We refer to the economic, commercial, or better to being more specifically, mercantile interests that allow a nation to become powerful by increasing its reserves of wealth. Every nation needs these reserves to ensure the purchase of the elements (raw materials, weapons) necessary to sustain the internal system of his nation.
Certainly, our world is still governed mainly through commercial relationships. The main actors responsible for defending these interests in this great conflagration are two large geopolitical blocs.
On the one hand, the European Union wants to make sure that its imports of natural gas from Ukraine, as well as its exports to it, are not threatened by instability in the region.
Ukraine, for its part, wants to increase its exports by benefiting from free trade with the European Union, while attracting the desired foreign investment. The bases of this great rapprochement were synthesized in the "Association Agreement" finally signed in 2014.
While the Russian economy would have been strongly threatened if this investment in trade relations had been finalized.
Sometimes, when one of these great nations perceived a possible threat that could directly affect their main interests, it was when they decided to start with defensive strategies. It is for this reason that the Eurasian giant began the invasion of the Ukrainian nation following this insane imperial logic.
In this sense, the fundamental thing is to understand what are the interests and the paradoxical great advantages that armed conflict produces for these great actors on the world stage, fundamentally moved by an imperial logic in our era.
Kremlin interests
For Russia, the start of the conflict meant turning over part of its industrial capacity to improve the production of weapons. The level of spending allocated directly to weapons to cover internal needs has been increasing progressively since the start of hostilities. In other words, the war is allowing Russia to finish rebuilding the defense industry that had been practically abandoned since the 1990s, as a consequence of the dissolution of the USSR.
The improvements produced within the obsolete Russian arms industry are part of the Special Federal Program for the Restructuring of the Defense Industry that officially came into force in 2011. This program provided the Russian military industry with very large financing. Among the technological innovations that made the application of the program possible, the renewal of obsolete military satellites and the improvement of various technological systems stand out. This program brought together companies and research centers that were closely related during the Soviet period, however, those that would become more important would be those created from scratch and adapted to the new circumstances of the country's defense.
Although it is hard to believe, the Russian arms industry suffered from a very serious structural deterioration, as a consequence of the abandonment of this sector during the democratic transition process after the definitive dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s. One of the most impressive examples of this technological and productive backwardness is the underdevelopment in the generation and production of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) in Russia.
Despite this relative backwardness, Russia continued to be the one of the main arms exporter. During the 1990s, arms exports prevented a complete collapse of arms production and the breakdown of this industry in Russia.
In fact, of the entire military production within the defense industry, at the beginning of the decade, more than 70% was destined for exports; in 1998 this figure was over 60%, and in 1999 it reached close to 80%. In the following years, this percentage decreased: in 2006-2007 it was around 40%, and in the years that the new weapons program was in force it was slightly higher than 30%.
Thus, for the defense industry, exports continue to be a strategic component of production, but they have been losing relevance. It can be pointed out that, although with the breakup of the USSR the country lost relative importance in international markets, during the last decade it has established itself as the second world supplier of weapons. Basically, Russia uses exports as a means to raise funds to modernize its obsolete industry.
In this way we can conclude by saying that the current armed conflict it’s given green light to Russia to achieve the most ambitious goals of the defense industry restructuring program. Simplifying, Russia will be able to reach an advanced level of defense while the conflict with Ukraine continues and will therefore have the capacity to support its national interests in a not inconsiderable way from a military point of view.
This is the main reason why the extension of the conflict is, in some way, beneficial for Russia.
A high cost to pay
For the European Union, the prolongation of the conflict has many disadvantages in the short term. Although we sometimes overlook it, Russia is part of Europe and there is a strong economic and cultural relationship between them. Both blocks depend on each other. But it is highly probable that the European economies must face the greatest difficulties because they were a big customer of Russia. The start of the war meant, for Europe, the start of serious temporary problems, such as shortages.
The main problem for them is energy dependence on Russia, one of the world's largest oil and gas exporters, and Ukraine, a major transit country for Russian gas. Europe gets more than a third of its gas supply and about a quarter of its oil from Russia. Disruptions in the global supply chain are a key risk, and at the very least, prices for these commodities are likely to remain high for some period, keeping global inflation high for longer.
This situation is aggravated by the heterogeneity of actors involved in such global trade chains. That is, Western leaders must maintain unity in more than 20 divided democracies, persuading citizens from Canada to Bulgaria that rising energy prices are worth it. Inevitably, there will be political breakdowns within the West.
In fact, the problems in reaching consensus are already taking place in the West. Pressure from Germany for France to break all commercial relations with Russia is presented as one of the first signs of the breakdown of Western cohesion. This is another difficulty generated by Russia's energy dependency. And it is that both France and the United States continue to buy enriched uranium from Russia. Their main excuse is that it is a matter of nuclear safety.
France is one of the countries within the European community that, despite continuing to support the Western policy of applying sanctions against the Russian government, has not allowed its commercial relations with the latter to break completely.
Another of the countries that continue to have strong connections with Russia is Germany. This nation, which is also dependent on Russian gas, is one of the members of the Western community that, because it enjoys a certain autonomy from regional leaderships, is the country that shares the most interests with the Russian Federation. Although this situation changed drastically after the outbreak of the war when the nation had to adhere to the Western policy of sanctions. The invasion has destroyed one of the pillars of German foreign policy, the one known as "Ostpolitik". It was a policy of rapprochement towards the former East Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia.
Even though diplomatically the German State must follow the guidelines of the European community, they cannot completely break their relations with the Eurasian giant because they continue to depend on the importation of Russian gas. We must not forget that the German industry is the main gas consumer in the European Union.
Another problem that the European Union have to face is the restriction on grain trade with Ukraine, one of the largest grain producers in the world. Since the beginning of the war, Russian troops have blocked the ports of Ukraine, causing a huge crisis of shortages throughout the continent.
Food shortages threaten to become one of the most serious problems facing the Western bloc for the duration of the war. We refer to the scarcity of raw materials and food, and its inflationary effects. Ukraine and Russia produce nearly a third of the world's wheat and barley and are major exporters of metals. In fact, some manufacturing companies in Europe, which depend on metal parts from the Ukraine, already have supply problems. Disruptions in supply chains, as well as rising costs for many raw materials, have pushed up the price of food in Europe.
The light at the end of the tunnel
The outlook so far is not good for the nations of the Western bloc, especially for the countries of the European Union. However, this series of disadvantages, which implies the extension of the war over time, are seen by the members of the European community as necessary conditions to prevent the advance of Russian imperialism.
Since the beginning of the great conflagration, the European Union ordered the creation of a cell in charge of coordinating the purchase of weapons to support the Ukrainian government against the Russian attack. The European Commission also decided to mobilize the European Union Satellite Center to provide intelligence services to Ukraine. In this way, the Russo-Ukrainian war allowed the EU to reaffirm itself as a geostrategic force and get involved in a military conflict in which it is definitely the protagonist.
The main reason why prolonging the conflict is somehow "beneficial" for the Western bloc is that the situation generated by the war allows it to expand the great wall that divides both geopolitical spaces. We refer to the old "iron curtain" of the cold war. The geostrategic objectives of the West are to isolate Russia territorially and militarily definitively, at whatever cost is necessary and, in this case, Ukraine has been the propitious scenario.
In this sense, the interest that drives the actions of the Western nations is to advance with their own imperial plan to “westernize” the world and, above all, prevent the strengthening of a “new Eastern bloc”.
Repositioning itself as a great block of strong nations becomes the main objective of the West. Recover the ability to act forcefully when what is at stake are their main interests. Basically, regaining relevance on the world stage is one of the main reasons why the European Union is interested in the war extending over time.
Knowing the enemy
Although it may seem paradoxical, since the war apparently has more negative effects for Western nations, the continuity of the conflict has an advantage for them. In addition to allowing them to continue strengthening their diplomatic and commercial ties with Ukraine, the indefinite prolongation of the armed conflict allows them to test the forces of a historical enemy. Somehow, the defensive position that the Ukrainian forces are forced to take given their status as an invaded nation, allows the West to see from the outside the real possibilities of the Russian army.
Additionally, several national governments of the European Union Member States decided to send arms and economic aid to the Ukrainian government, as well as facilitate the entry of Ukrainian refugees into their respective territories. The package of measures also included a ban on Russian planes from flying to Europe and introduced bans on the export of sensitive technology.
Western leaders are once again in history following the teachings of the Asian philosopher Sun Tzu when he said that ..."if you know your enemy and you know yourself, you should not fear the result of a thousand battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every battle you win you will suffer a defeat. "Unless you keep informed of the enemy's situation and are ready to attack at any moment, a war can drag on for years".
The prolongation of the war allows them to observe without getting involved from a position of absolute advantage. The entire arsenal and all the military strategy used by the former Soviet Union are at western disposal. Let's go back to Sun Tzu..."fighting and winning in all battles is not the greatest merit; the maximum merit consists in breaking the resistance of the enemy without fighting”. It is exactly what the West is doing. With the spread of the conflict, the West is keeping alive the possibility of a historic victory over the invincible Eurasian giant.
Unfortunately for the West, Vladimir Putin is also well acquainted with the advice of the great Asian military strategist. The Soviet leader is not only the typical politician we are used to seeing from this side of the hemisphere, but also has first-class military training. He worked for sixteen years as a foreign intelligence officer for the KGB, the intelligence agency of the Soviet Union, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1991. Given this, we can assume that Putin knows at least some of his advice. As for example the passage that says..."when we can attack, it must seem that we cannot; if we are close, we must make us think that we are far away; seem defenseless when we are stronger than him". In this regard, it seems that the western countries need to be extremely careful about the decisions that are made on the battlefield.
So... why isn't this war over yet?
As we said at the beginning, wars are the cruelest consequence of not having been able to lay the necessary foundations for an agreement between two opposing parties. Now then, the main objective of wars is not only to achieve victory at any cost, but fundamentally it is about achieving the satisfaction of those competing interests that could not be matched in the arena of diplomacy. This is the limit of any major armed conflict.
The most accurate answer to the question that we all ask ourselves about the war between Russia and Ukraine is related to the interests of the big players that are outside the battlefield.
Why isn't the war over yet? Basically, because the objectives of both powers have not yet been completed.
Surprisingly, the answer does not include Russia's inability to end the war any time soon. Nor to the unexpected resilience of the Ukrainian forces. But the answer is a little more complex and ultimately, it's a bit of an uncomfortable truth.
The reality is that what determines the continuity of the war is the adoption by both blocks of intransigent policies that do not seek the conciliation of the parties but are mainly focused on enforcing their interests at any cost.
Russia's demands are so radical that many political analysts consider them untenable, meaning it is a bargaining chip for Russia or a justification for war when its demands are inevitably rejected.
NATO member countries, for its part, immediately rejected the central stipulation of guaranteeing the suspension of the admission of new members.
Unfortunately, this is a historical characteristic of the great world conflicts.
It may also interest you
