Sirgi Palukhi, historian: "Russia realized the threat from a united Europe"

The professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University talked to LA RAZÓN about the latest news about the war in Ukraine

Serhii Plokhy, historian: “Russia has recognized the danger posed by a united Europe”

A professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University spoke to LE Razons about the war in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine is approaching its fourth year, although the prospect of a ceasefire still seems remote.Despite international pressure - led by Donald Trump - Vladimir Putin continues his offensive aimed at undermining Ukraine's infrastructure ahead of the imminent arrival of winter.LA RAZON spoke with the department's professor of Ukrainian history Serhii Plohi about these and other topics.Mihail Hrushevsky at Harvard University.

The historian was in Madrid to participate in the conference "The war between Russia and Ukraine through the eyes of a historian", which took place last Monday and was organized by the Ramón Areces Foundation together with the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.

Question: What motivated Vladimir Putin to start this war?

A: Before the war started in 2014, with the annexation of Crimea, Putin's popularity with the public.He received a lot of support from the Russian people, as the country's economic performance was not doing well and the expectations of the Russian public were rising.So, there are things that "successful" small "successes", which are called "special military operations", can improve the position. This is one way to interpret what is happening, if you look at it from the perspective of Russia's internal politics. But there is also an external dimension.

In terms of foreign policy, it is Russia's attempt to regain its position after defeat in the Cold War and to reassert control over the former Russian Empire and the former Soviet Union.Ukraine was the largest Soviet republic after Russia, so it was impossible to restore control over the post-Soviet space without subduing Ukraine.There have already been small wars in Georgia, wars in Chechnya, but now we have Ukraine.There is a really big war because the country is central to Putin's vision of how Russia can regain its great power status.

The official theme of this war is the 'denazutation' of Ukraine, which means 'de-Ukrain': Removal of Ukrainian Reser and General Turning to Russia only people.This is what they are doing to Ukian children who are kidnapped and taken to Russia, where they live as Russians.That is the example they want to use the whole country.

Q: Does Alaska translate into any effective trade between Trump and Einstein?

Answer: There were undoubtedly high hopes at the Alaska meeting that a truce was possible.We now see that these hopes were groundless, for an armistice, as is generally said, means the cessation of war on the present line of contact.However, Russia believes that it can still improve its position on the front, which is why it does not want to stop the war on the current line.Regardless of whether Ukraine wants to cede territory at this point or not, the existing separation line must be recognized and the shooting must stop.

For its part, Russia saw itself as being in an advantageous position, not because it is winning on the front - because progress is small - but because the coalition that supports Ukraine during the war has broken.There are conflicts within the European Union, conflicts between Europe and the United States, and the uncertain situation in America, which changes frequently.

Russia believes it can improve its position in the future

Q: What explains the U.S. president's change in tone?About Ukraine

A: It is very clear that through President Trump, his goal is to make history by "destabilizing."In his efforts to stop the war in Ukraine, he realized that the main obstacle was not Ukraine or Zelensky, but Russia and Putin.That is why he is trying to increase the pressure on Russia - now as a specific target - although he is also considering the possibility of strengthening the scents again, or allowing Europeans from the United States to Ukraine.So, in my view, peace is the strategic goal of the US administration, and the change in tone is tactical.Trump is trying various ways to get to the point where he can reach an agreement.

We are also seeing that the rhetoric in Washington is changing, and not only about Ukraine, but also in the economic sphere and in general international politics.Trump plays the card of unpredictability, and this behavior undoubtedly has a particular effect in Ukraine, where it is understood that without the continued support of the West, resistance will be very difficult, if not impossible.

Q: Can Donald Trump, Ukraine's partner, be trusted?

A: I was in Ukraine in September and the mood was flowing with the speaker.Now the situation is calm.General attitude: "Let's wait, we won't react to every statement. Let's see what on earth happens."Shock people are tired.They don't react to what they are now with hope or despair.In general, the main crisis between the US and Ukraine - in the White House - formed by the failed summit between Zelenensky and Trump - begins to go.I think this white house has a clear understanding of the real situation on the ground.

Q: How will the conflict in the White House affect Zelinsky's personality?

A: Nothing strengthened Zelensky's position in Ukraine more than what happened at the White House.It’s clear: Ukrainians are fighting for their independence, and part of that independence is not letting others tell them who is a good or bad president.They are the ones who judge and make these decisions.The majority of Ukrainians believe that the time is neither for elections nor for internal political conflicts, but for unification around the president.This does not mean that Zelensky is immune from criticism: this summer, young people took to the streets to protest against specific cases of corruption.But Ukrainians believe they have the right to criticize him, to decide whether he should continue or be re-elected.

Q: Will Washington ensure that Tlans are taken from KYIV?

A: In my opinion, given the point we are at and the history of the war, yes: the chances of accepting the shipment of weapons (Tomahawk) are very high.It will not completely change the course of the conflict, nor the acceptance of ATACMS missiles, HIMARS, Leopard tanks and other systems.Basically, it's a seemingly never-ending story.What it will do is help the Ukrainians to hold the front line, that is very clear.Now, the biggest threat comes not from the front itself, but from Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.As Ukraine can also threaten the Russian infrastructure in the country, the battlefield will be more balanced.

Here's how I see it: I think it is likely I will improve Ukraine's position.It will not change the direction of the war, but a prerequisite that exists in view of the arrival of new weapons in the future - it can have a positive effect.In other words, if Trump obeys this, even if it is not guaranteed, the threat implies that he can continue on this path and not just remain in rhetoric.For Russia, this could be a further incentive to stop now rather than test the situation further.

The chances of accepting the arms shipment are very high

Q: What was Europe's role in the conflict?

A: The security of Europe today depends on the end of the war in Ukraine, and this can only be achieved by putting more pressure on Russia.Europe is already a key player in this area and can become an even more effective player if it acts to protect its interests.The US and Europe were the two main suppliers of arms and financial support to Ukraine, but the US has relinquished that role.Now Europe is its only real support.Ukraine, and it shows its power, although it does not always admit it.Europe's biggest problem at the moment - apart from the fact that it is difficult to get all countries on the same page - is a lack of trust.In addition to bureaucracy and internal divisions, Europe's great challenge is to interpret itself as power, because in fact it already is.

Q: What is behind drones and fighter jets in NATO Airspace?

A: Russia is aware of the danger that the United Europe has caused when Europe is not yet aware of power.That's why he tried to break up with her.I believe that, in the end, Russia's actions will end up supporting and contributing to the strengthening of European unity and resolve.These attacks are the confirmation of the new, more powerful Europe in international relations.

Now everything depends on the answer.If the affected countries act decisively and shoot down all the drones or the entire aircraft, that would be a clear answer.But on the contrary, on the contrary, the response so far is "nothing", it is a new provocation, because it is these provocations.Borders must be respected and protected.If Europe defends its borders and accepts its European identity, it accepts this situation.

Question: does the war end with an armistice?

R: Creo que el alto el fuego es el escenario más probable en este momento, seguido de negociaciones sobre lo que pueda ocurrir después. Sin ese alto el fuego previo, sería muy difícil alcanzar de inmediato un tratado de paz completo. Además, el alto el fuego es un paso necesario para reconstruir cierta confianza y credibilidad: es la manera de demostrar que los compromisos que se negocian realmente se van a cumplir. No tengo una bola de cristal para decir cómo terminará la guerra, pero el alto el fuego parece ser un primer paso muy probable hacia algún tipo de acuerdo o arreglo.

Log in to your account to comment