If, as seems possible, the Ukrainians succeed in thwarting the attempt to Vladimir Putin to incorporate them into the new Russian empire that he is trying to build, it will be largely because the president Volodymyr Zelensky he knew how to locate the invasion of his country in the confrontation between the liberal democracies and a league of autocracies headed by theto China from Xi Jinping.
On the eve of the invasion, the American president Joe Biden hinted that he would be willing to overlook “a minor incursion” by Russia, but with the help of friends in Washington and London, Zelensky managed to convince him that remaining passive would cost him even more than the chaotic abandonment of Afghanistan in September last year that did so much to spread the impression that he was a poor old man manipulated by ambitious mediocrities. Biden got the message and, little by little, The United States began supplying the Ukrainians Lethal weapons that, with those already sent by the British, Estonians and others, would allow them to stop the advance of the Russian columns and prepare to launch a counteroffensive that, they hope, would serve to expel the invaders from all their sovereign territory, including the Crimean peninsula, which, like parts of the Donbas, was occupied in 2014.
For many Westerners,Zelensky’s Ukraine already embodies democracywhile Putin is the most fearsome representative of unenlightened despotism that, to the concern of those concerned about the difficulties that all Western countries are facing, still has the sympathy of rightists and leftists fed up with a status quo that in their opinion has been incapable of resolving the political, social and economic problems that plague them.
Before the current phase of Russia’s attempt to take over Ukraine got underway, few took it for a model democracy, but since February 25, opponents of authoritarian regimes have stopped criticizing the rampant corruption and other shortcomings that had provided pretexts to in effect turn its back on a country that was poor and, they supposed, militarily so weak that it would be useless to let him enter NATO.
For their part, the Ukrainians themselves, Led by Zelenskythey soon understood that appearing as the heroic champions of Western democracy in a fight to the death against a ruthless dictatorship would assure them the enthusiastic support of United States, United Kingdom, Canada and, with some reservations, the solidarity of the main countries of the European Union. Thanks to the change of image thus assumed, what began as a somewhat quixotic struggle for national independence against an aggressive neighbor was transformed into a war in defense of a form of government that until then seemed to be in retreat in many parts of the world. world.
So brutal has been the clash caused by the war that the leaders of largely neutral democracies such as Finland and Sweden, as well as others as distant from the battlefield as the Japan and South Koreasoon came to the conclusion that, unless they all closed ranks, they could be the next victims of an authoritarian blow.
Although the extreme brutality of the Russian soldiers has cost Putin the support of some who had admired him for his willingness to oppose American pretensions and, among those alarmed by the preaching of figures determined to drastically modify the prevailing moral standards in the rich countries, because of their alleged adherence to certain traditional values, there are still many Europeans who respect their will to prevent Russia from being affected by the cultural changes that they say are bringing the Western world to ruin. The fact that Putin is an autocrat who orders the poisoning of his political rivals and the imprisonment of those who dare to protest in public against the abuses of power that he perpetrates, they are not concerned. As for democracy, they insist that the institutions that regulate it, such as political parties, the judiciary and, of course, the media, have been captured by elites who despise the common man.
Although it would be comforting to believe that the democratization of dozens of countries, including Argentina, which began in the eighties of the last century and continued until recently, was due to the love of freedom that supposedly beats in every human heart, the truth is another. In societies with authoritarian traditions -that is, in almost all of them- it was a purely pragmatic question in which the awareness that, with the possible exception of a handful of oil emirates, in the final decades of the last century democracies were the the only countries in which the overwhelming majority could enjoy adequate income and take full advantage of their personal talents, hence Raúl Alfonsín’s famous assertion that “with democracy you not only vote, but also eat, educate and heal” .
Needless to say, as time went by, it became clear that, by itself, democracy could not guarantee such benefits that, to our dismay, would depend on changes that, for whatever reasons, the democratically elected political class in countries like Argentina would not be willing to undertake.
In much of the world, the majority will always be inclined to support the system that, in their opinion, is the most capable of providing security, predictability, material well-being, an identity, and the feeling of participating in a worthy collective effort. Instinctively, many will prefer state paternalism to the individualism that is typical of liberal societies and tend to believe that authoritarian movements are superior to democratic ones in which internal disputes are endless and leaders are prone to change their minds from one day to the next. For reasons few understand. As a goal, freedom may seem desirable to them, but once achieved, they find it confusing and too demanding, which is why, after spending years risking themselves fighting for democracy, there are those who soon find themselves disillusioned by what what they have achieved.
It also influences what is happening in other parts of the world. China’s spectacular resurgence under a regime that, while becoming less totalitarian than in Mao’s day, remains highly dictatorial, has convinced many that those who had insisted that, despite appearances, the Authoritarian governments were much less effective than democratic ones. Likewise, those who had bet that the rapid expansion of the middle class would mean that more and more Chinese would want more personal freedom have been disappointed, since most credit the nominally communist dictatorship with the remarkable increase in their standard of living. Pointing out to those accustomed to living under the rule of Beijing that in Taiwan and Singapore, not to mention Hong Kong, that in democratic societies people of the same ethnic origin, language and culture have prospered much more has not served to convince them that a less tyrannical regime would suit.
Another alleged advantage of democracy to which Western optimists often allude is that, at a time when economic dynamism depends on the contributions of millions of people, their possible ideological preferences matter very little, but in today’s China it is still dangerous oppose the official narrative. A great deal may change as a result of the sudden slowdown in ultra-fast growth that, in a very short time, made it an economic superpower, but unless the recent problems in the Chinese economy produce a very strong reaction, its many achievements they will continue to inspire those who are convinced that, when it comes to promoting economic development, authoritarian regimes are clearly superior to democratic ones. This is not a novel idea; Almost everyone thought this way when military dictatorships were fashionable not only here but also in dozens of other Latin American, African and Asian countries.
A very significant difference between societies with a democratic culture and authoritarian ones is that in the former responsibilities are shared, while in the latter they are concentrated in very few hands. According to European and American military experts, the Russian armed forces, despite having a strong numerical advantage, are at risk of being defeated by the Ukrainian ones because non-commissioned officers are not allowed to make tactical decisions and captains, majors and colonels always need have the endorsement of a general. It is for this reason that the Ukrainian units have been remarkably more agile than the Russian ones who, to the astonishment of observers, have already lost on the battlefield at least twelve generals who, unable to trust their subordinates, felt compelled to go to the front to see what happened. Even worse, from the point of view of the Russians, has been the very low morale of the troops who, battered by officers who see them as disposable cannon fodder, are reluctant to fight, while the morale of the Ukrainians, who know properly respected in a democratic society, is through the roof.
