Russia’s Divergent Opinions and Occidentals on International Relations have been recently challenged for a compromise with respect to Ukraine and Belarus. But there is a series of advances in which Russia is renouncing any territorial advertising on these lands in exchange for a Western guarantee that they will not be allowed to join the OTAN.

LONDON – While the world is in the throes of a new war, democracies and authoritarian states need to determine what is needed and what needs to be done to allow for constructive cooperation. The democracies can not simply say that the time has come for them and only those who maintain their principles have the collapsing authoritarian regimes. It is easier to imagine the end of the planet than the disappearance of the authoritarian goblins.

The current tense focus is Ukraine (although it can easily be Taiwanese). This “war was not declared” since 2014, when the Euromaidan movement took place in the presence of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of the Eastern Region of Dombas. While accusing Russia of illegally acceding to the territory of another sovereign state, Russia affirms that it recovers part of its motherland.

These oppressive narratives reflect historical differences. The leaders of the Russian politicians – and many Russian citizens – are reconciling with their parents that the country has lost the Guerra Fría, because this hub implied to accept that between 1989 and 1991 the global balance of power was immediately in favor of Estados and its European allies.

Mientras tanto, los occidentales stán tan habituados a considerar Guerra Fría como una léga ideologische entre el capitalismo et el communismo, o entre la democracia y la dictadura, que fueron incapace de entenderla en terminos de equilibrios de poder. Part of the nuclear fue balance, but a large part of the territorial fue. After the Second World War, Russia sought to create in Europe of the East an assassin against the Western invasions – the most devastating of Hitler’s attacks in 1941 on the Soviet Union – which would tarnish his history.

Between 1989 and 1991 this amortiguador was converted into the new Eastern Oriental of Occidente. The Soviet Union’s members of the Warsaw Pact, including this much-needed voluntary agreement, joined the OTAN, a military alliance of Western nations, to oppose the Soviet Union.

These are the basic precedents of what is happening in Ukraine as well as in Belarus. Since then, many Russian officials have said that if they take the initiative, these countries will unite at the OTAN Exodus.

Russia has always considered Ukraine to be within its sphere of interest and influence. Until 2014, the Kremlin micro-managed the Ukrainian internal policies to ensure that the country was aligned with the Russian interests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently declared that “the sovereignty of Ukraine alone is possible in association with Russia”, affirming and denouncing in any way the Ukrainian independence, an antecedent sent by the treaty that the Soviet Union in Europe and its satellite del Este.

Certainly hay much toska (approximately, a melancholy aura) in the act rushed forward to its separation from Ukraine. But we will never move the paper that Ukraine (and Belarus) holds in the Kremlin’s balance of power.

The British diplomat and the European Union Robert Cooper said that in the western states “have no interest in acquiring territories”, but they ignore the fact that in the territory can be deployed missiles. If Ukraine is located in member of the OTAN, the eastern front of the Alliance will be several hundred kilometers away from Moscow.

The ideas about international relations in the West follow a different historical sector of what is happening in Russia. From the French Revolution onwards, national sovereignty surged as one of the central principles for the West. According to President Woodrow Wilson’s interpretation, this means national self-determination.

The main idea was that in a world where everyone should have the freedom to decide on their own future, there will be no need for the balance of power or the spheres of influence. Seriously pacific series. In the name of this principle, all European colonial empires will finally be dismantled.

In 1795, Emmanuel Kant called for a federation of democracies to guarantee “peace be upon him”. In 1999, in the most modest way, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, declared that “the diffusion of our values ​​has our greatest security”, which implies a compromise to try to provoke a “regime change” when surgery the opportunity.

No to the impression that these postures – the security guaranteed by a balance of power and the security guaranteed by democracy – allow much margin for agreement: there will be nothing between them. Clearly, in any system that proceeds to maintain a balance between large potentials some countries tend to have less self-determination than others.

Peru the current international hybrid system includes such balances of power as initiatives to “divide our values”. This combination has the unstoppable principal hope of establishing a way of life that allows for cooperation between democracies and authoritarian regimes in existential planetary matters such as the climate change climate.

A way to advance in Europe of this series that Russia renounces the territorial claims against Ukraine and Belarus in exchange for the Western guarantee that they will not be allowed to join the OTAN. This creation, of course, is a neutral military zone between Russia and the West.

Under the auspices of the OTAN, there will be discussions, including countries that develop economic and cultural angles with the EU, or will be absorbed by Russia if it is decided by means of a referendum with international supervision.

Belgium offers an antecedent util to respect. When the French control of Belgium was relinquished after the fall of Napoleon in Waterloo, the victorious principals incorporated the new United Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the intention of helping to control any future expansion effort.

The Belgian Revolution took place in 1830 in support of independence, which was carried out by the great powers (Gran Bretaña, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia) with the Treaty of London of 1839, on condition that Belgium be neutral and perpetuated. Although Belgium, unlike Switzerland, does not disregard neutrality, it eliminates the possibility of large powers allowing the new state to benefit from a guaranteed guarantee of international rights.

By supuesto, no existe la paz perpetua. Belgian neutrality was interrupted by Germany’s Guillermina in 1914. Of all forms, it is clear that the country did not have wars for 75 years. A creative graduate diploma in respect to Ukraine currently offers the best probabilities of converting a war not declared into a declared peace.

The author

Robert Skidelsky, Member of the Chamber of Deputies of the British Lores, is Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at the University of Warwick.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2020

www.projectsyndicate.org



Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.