FLASH
Shkruar nga Paolo RossettiRussia is resisting, even as ordinary Russians are facing many hardships. They are suffering the most from the economic crisis, the rise in prices and taxes, and the modification of the economy to support the war. However, Russians as a people are used to the idea of war.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andryi Sybiha called it one of the most powerful attacks by the Russians. Zelensky spoke about 120 missiles and 90 drones launched by Moscow. Again, the targets were those that have become commonplace in recent months: the energy infrastructure, which this time has been so badly damaged that, according to some, it has destroyed up to 90 percent of Ukraine's capacity.
A major attack, which contradicts the first timid words that precede the possible launch of peace negotiations, and that began to circulate immediately after the victory of Donald Trump in the elections of November 5. Or perhaps these attacks should be seen precisely in relation to these talks, revealing Russian tactics to achieve the greatest possible gains on the front, before the parties sit down at the table and talk.
Meanwhile, as reported by the New York Times, outgoing President Joe Biden responded to the Russian attack by allowing the Ukrainians to use US long-range missiles in strikes inside Russian territory. The panorama of the situation, says Stefano Caprio, a Catholic priest of the Byzantine rite in Russia in 1989-2002, today a theologian and expert on the Russian world, is not yet well-defined.
This is also shown by the words of Sviatoslav Shevchuk, archbishop of the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine, according to whom it is not yet time for negotiations. According to him, Ukraine does not want to give up its territories, and should not put too much hope in its neutrality. Because for the high cleric, such a condition would not guarantee that she would not be the object of attacks again in the future.
Why did the Russians launch this huge new attack on Ukraine, just at a time when there is talk of peace?
War has its logic, and this attack at the beginning of winter is part of the logic of war. All the more so if there has been talk of peace. The Russians want to negotiate from a stronger position. It is debatable whether Moscow is really willing to negotiate. On the one hand, negotiations can begin, given that the US will soon be led by Trump, a friend of Putin. On the other hand, this situation may force the head of the Kremlin to pretend that he wants to negotiate, while on the ground he is preparing the final attack. I think he has victory more in mind than peace, the idea of going down in history as the leader who reconquered Ukraine. Even Russian analysts think that Putin wants to conquer not only Donbass.
So he wants to put the entire neighboring country under his control?
More or less. I think this was his idea from the beginning, and he never gave up on it.
According to the New York Times, Biden has authorized Kiev to use long-range missiles against Russia, at least in the Kursk area. How can you explain this decision, after such a long period of reluctance, and now that his term is ending?
It is an expected decision. In this way, if there will really be negotiations, Ukraine will also feel a little stronger. It is Biden's last "gift", not knowing what Kiev should expect from Trump. Everything seems to be happening according to the logic of the winter offensive: the Russians have stepped up their attacks, and the Ukrainians should be able to retaliate in kind. If all goes well, negotiations could begin in the spring of next year.
To many analysts, Russia appears to have reacted well to the war. It has not collapsed, as many in the West predicted, militarily, economically or even socially. Is it really so?
Yes, Russia is resisting, even though ordinary Russians are facing many difficulties. They are suffering the most from the economic crisis, the rise in prices and taxes, and the modification of the economy to support the war. However, Russians are accustomed as a people to the idea of war. No one protests, also because all the opposition parties have been forcibly disbanded. The country is in a dilemma between the end of the war and the launch of the decisive attack. The Russian people would like an end to the fighting, but a deep-rooted patriotic pride in them demands victory.
What is the significance of Archbishop Shevchuk's words in this context? The Vatican is urging consideration of any path leading to peace. Why do Greek Catholics demand something else?
In Ukraine, they think that the moment is very delicate. There is a possibility that the re-election as president of Donald Trump will force Ukraine to accept an unfavorable peace treaty, giving up territories, knowing that for the Russian side this could be an opportunity to go to the end of the war. So Shevchuk did nothing but echo the sentiment of the Ukrainians.
What weight does this church have in Ukraine?
It has between 3-5 million believers, compared to 7-8 million nationalist Ukrainians and 10-12 million pro-Russian Ukrainians, who are not supported as much by Moscow. Greek Catholics represent a minority, but still a significant part. These words carry weight because Shevchuk is in harmony with the autocephalous Church of Ukraine.
Is the archbishop on Zelensky's side? Because the president said that peace must be achieved by 2025?
Yes, that point must be reached, but without sacrificing anything. Zelensky is trying to keep Trump on his side.
If Shevchuk expresses a common sentiment, what terms can Ukrainians accept for peace, always assuming that they will not be forced to bow in the face of imminent military defeat?
Ukraine may agree to join the European Union, but not NATO. However, it will require guarantees from the point of view of military defense, without having to give up territories.
Will Kiev have to formally give up the territories already occupied by the Russians?
Ukraine will never accept their release, but will be forced to accept temporarily that it cannot release them. The definition of relations with Russia will always be one of conflict and never peace. Kiev will not accept international recognition of Moscow's annexation of Crimea and Donbass.
But is it true, as Shevchuk says, that the neutrality of Ukraine would not provide any sufficient guarantee to avoid new Russian attacks in the future?
Yes, in case there is no guarantee from NATO, which can still protect it from outside without Ukraine's membership in the Atlantic alliance. On the other hand, Putin cannot be satisfied with a part of the territory that was already in his possession before the full-scale invasion of 2022./ Adapted "Pamphlet" from "Il Sussidiario"
Lini një Përgjigje