Slowly and slowly, the war in Ukraine (which was supposedly not a war, but a "three-day special military operation") has been going on for four years and is increasingly resembling the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, in which the two sides "shaked like dogs" for eight years to end up at their starting positions. Well, here things are "stuck" not at their starting positions, but at about 20% of the Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia. But from there on - it seems like neither forward nor backward, and so on for months, even years. And although these days direct peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have been reached with the mediation of the USA, in no way The conflict seems to be coming to an end.
Let's see why:
Ukraine: "The Birth of a Nation"
Resisting Russian aggression for four years is nothing short of a feat on the part of Ukraine, given the differences in the potential (human, military) of the two countries. But even this is not Kiev's greatest victory.
Until February 24, 2022, Ukraine was a country of regions, in which two main national elements coexisted plus a number of smaller ethnic minorities. The western part was inhabited mainly by ethnic Ukrainians, while the eastern part was more Russian-speaking. The two halves had difficulty existing within a single state organism - but not so much because of linguistic (even less, cultural) differences, but because of foreign policy disagreements. "Western" Ukrainians dreamed of the EU and NATO, and the "eastern" were drawn to the "Russian world".
Hypothetically, if in 2022 a referendum were held in every Ukrainian region (similar to Ireland in 1921, which led to the division of the island), perhaps not only Donetsk and Lugansk would want to turn "east" - if not directly joining the Russian Federation, then at least secession from the central government in Kiev and closer ties with Moscow. And lo and behold, more than 20% of Ukrainian territory turned out to be part of the Russian Eurasian space.
However, Russian tanks reversed these attitudes and a large part of the "eastern" Ukrainians, who suffered the horrors of the war to a much greater extent than the "western", now do not even want to hear about Russia. In practice, the invasion united the two parts of people into a single nation. Which is now very difficult (not to say, downright impossible) to accept peace with territorial losses. And the current realities on the front do not suggest peace with a return to the starting positions.
Russia: a new "Patriotic War" against the "collective West"
The invasion of Ukraine brought a lot of headaches to the Russian side - a long and painful war against a surprisingly well-prepared and highly motivated opponent; a high price (in human lives and material resources) for the territories conquered so far; severe economic sanctions; international isolation, which acquired not only political, but also cultural and sporting dimensions. Therefore, many are wondering where the Russian motivation for continuing the war comes from.
Yes, in general, the West does not understand the Russian motivation. The military endurance of the Russian nation turned out to be surprisingly high, and this is also due to the ability of the Russian population to endure wartime adversity - very more patiently than in any "Western" country (with the exception of Israel, if we count it as part of the West). This Russian peculiarity also has its historical reasons - when your family memory contains stories about the hardships of World War II (especially if we are talking about the siege of Leningrad), it will be difficult to be impressed by some kind of sanctions.
"Regardless of sanctions and losses, Moscow has shown that this war can continue for a very long time." This is the conclusion of Luka Steinman, the only Western military correspondent who was in Donbas when the "special military operation" was announced and spent seven months in the company of the Russian armed forces, on the Russian side of the front line.
The motivation of the Russian troops remains high, because they believe that they are actually fighting against the West, against the Americans, against NATO, and the Ukrainians on the other side are mistaken, he also says Steinman.
Thus, the only acceptable way to end this war from the Russian side is to present it to Russian society as won. Which turns out to be a rather serious "challenge" for Vladimir Putin. Although it is the Kremlin that is pushing the propaganda line for the war against the "collective West".
USA: "blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"
The United States in this case is well placed to play the role of peacemaker - American interests suggest that the war should end sooner, no matter how; American society is too little concerned about this conflict or rather has completely different concerns; a peace agreement would certainly increase Donald Trump's chances for the Nobel Peace Prize (and given his ego, this is a pretty strong argument).
Yes, but achieving peace between Russia and Ukraine is not such a simple task. As can be seen from everything so far, at the moment it is not clear how the claims of the two sides can be combined. Perhaps because of this, Trump initially decided to put pressure on the supposedly weaker side (Ukraine), but this did not work. Now it is trying to break Russia - let's see what happens, but experience so far shows that Moscow is not afraid of sanctions.
Under the Joe Biden administration, Washington supported Kiev militarily, but this support turned out to be insufficient to push out the Russian aggressors. Now, under the Donald Trump administration, this military aid has been temporarily suspended, then restored, apparently with the idea of pushing for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Overall, the signals coming from the White House over the past year regarding the war are not particularly encouraging, but it was high time we realized that the US has its own interests, which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of either Ukraine or Europe.
EU: the big loser
If a peace agreement is reached that is disadvantageous for Kiev, the big loser will not be Ukraine. This country has managed to exceed expectations, its army has proven to be perhaps the most combat-ready in Europe at the moment, and its population has withstood pressure that would be unbearable for most spoiled modern European societies. The real loser would be the European Union.
Europe has already failed in this war. If Ukraine's European allies had provided it with the military assistance it requested, Russian troops would most likely have been pushed out of the occupied territories by now. But the European Union has turned out to be a colossus on clay feet: Russia, whose economy is the size of Spain's, manages to produce the necessary amount of ammunition; the entire EU, with its enormously larger economy than Russia's, fails to meet Ukraine's needs in this regard. The reasons for this are the subject of another analysis.
In late 2013 and early 2014, on the Kiev "Maidan" for the first time in history, people fought and died under the EU flag. A decade later, because of its inadequacy, the EU is on the verge of failing Ukraine.
And the most direct path to peace is for Ukraine, with the help of Europe, to refuse Russia from continuing the war - because this would mean increasing the damage.
Bulgaria: our interest is for Ukraine to win
Last but not least: the Bulgarian interest is for the war to end successfully for Ukraine. And why is this so - it is time to part with some illusions.
Pro-Ukrainian speakers in our country often make the mistake of putting forward unimportant arguments in this direction. It is constantly repeated that we should be with Ukraine because it is a victim, and Russia is an aggressor. Okay, so what? In 1912, in the Balkan War, Bulgaria was formally an aggressor. And more importantly: what if there is an international consensus that Russia is an aggressor - does that warm anyone in Ukraine?
And even greater stupidity: this was a conflict between a dictatorship (Russia) and a democracy (Ukraine). And she, a democracy.
The reasons for supporting Ukraine are completely different.
First, Russia is bringing the front closer to our borders, while Ukraine is moving it further away. We have an interest in being as far away as possible from the fault zone between the main geopolitical players (our proximity to Turkey is enough). If Russia imposes its will in Ukraine, it is not known whether other thoughts will come to them in the Kremlin. And let's not rely only on the fact that Bulgaria, at least for now, is not among Russia's priorities.
Second, Bulgaria needs Ukraine as an ally in NATO. Moreover, NATO needs an army like the Ukrainian one. But this is only possible if the war ends in a favorable way for Kiev.
And thirdly, Bulgaria has an interest in Ukraine joining the European Union one day. Where it can be a valuable thematic ally both against attempts to impose Franco-German domination and a "two-speed Europe", and to parry all sorts of greens, gender and other similar Euro-cretinisms. But this is also under threat in the event of a Russian victory.
Finally, let us realize that the war in Ukraine has already lasted twice as long as the COVID pandemic. Let us realize the scale of the tragedy, the fate of the victims and the difficulties facing the survivors.
And peace is still a mirage...