Biden in Kiev – 02/24/2023 – Demetrius Magnoli

Joe Biden has emerged by surprise in Kiev to free the US from the shadow of Kabul. Message from him, intended for domestic audiences, European allies and Russia: We will not abandon Ukraine. Without the humiliating American withdrawal from Afghanistan, in 2021, Putin would hardly have launched his imperial war of conquest. Today, from Donbass to Crimea, the global geopolitical balance is at stake.

The proclaimed “unipolar moment” of the implosion of the USSR and the first Gulf War (1990-91) remained in the past – and, perhaps, in the realm of illusions. At the time of Vietnam’s withdrawal half a century ago, the US economy accounted for 36% of global GDP; today, it represents about 24%. Chinese brute power, the size of the European Union economy and the Russian nuclear arsenal configured a multipolar geometry. The US is no longer the hegemon, but the “primus inter pares”. Ukraine stands at a historic crossroads: a litmus test of the superpower that engineered the world order.

“Victory” is, in this war, a changing concept. A year ago, from Ukraine’s point of view, it meant survival: thwarting the march of Russian columns to Kiev. Ukraine’s epic resistance, punctuated by battlefield triumphs, united the nation and transformed its military purpose. The war of aggression became a war of independence. Today, almost all Ukrainians (including the majority of Russian speakers) define “victory” as the Russian withdrawal from all invaded territories, including the Crimea occupied in 2014.

The US commitment to defending Ukraine’s sovereignty prevents the White House from engaging in direct negotiations with the Kremlin, over the Ukrainian government. The most that Biden could impose on Kiev would be the admission of an armistice based on the Russian withdrawal from the ceasefire lines in force a year ago.

The resolution approved by the UN by an overwhelming majority goes in that direction. Brazil aligned itself with the resolution, finally moving away from the hypocritical neutrality maintained by Bolsonaro and also rehearsed by Lula. But withdrawal is unacceptable to Moscow — and would mean the fall of the Putinist regime.

Originally, Putin defined “victory” as the overthrow of the Ukrainian government and the country’s incorporation into “Greater Russia” as a protectorate. The maximalist goal dissolved over months of military failures and the head of the Kremlin redefined it as the annexation of eastern and southern Ukraine. In the current scenario, the Russian strategy is to complete the occupation of these areas and force an armistice based on the military map. The way to do so is the rupture of the international alliance that sustains the Ukrainian resistance.

It’s not impossible. In the US, Trump and DeSantis lead the isolationist Republican wing willing to leave Ukraine. In Europe, the economic and migratory impacts of the prolonged war open cracks, still underground, in the political elites. Hence Putin’s bet on a “peace” plan that China promises to present, perhaps with India’s support. The “peace” with annexations would only be the preparatory hiatus for a third invasion.

The hypothetical Russian “victory” would signal a radical decline in the US global role, parallel to the rise of republican isolationism. In the European Union, it would produce a split between the Franco-German core and the nations of the former Soviet bloc. It would also propitiate the power projection of China and Russia.

The Putinist outcome would herald the collapse of the rule-based international order expressed in the UN Charter. In its place, something like the “pan-nationalism” dreamed of by Ernesto Araújo, Bolsonaro’s former foreign minister, would emerge: a system of spheres of influence managed by the great powers and the proliferation of authoritarian regimes based on ethnic or religious identities. The war in Ukraine is not a regional conflict.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.