The response of the United States and NATO to Russia’s demands, while foreseeable, does not entail certain risks, although not just around the corner. Although Moscow has made it clear that it considers a hypothetical entry of Ukraine in the Atlantic Alliance a threat to its security, the decision of President Joe Biden of keeping the open door policy in force has led to what the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, has defined as a «critical moment». But both the conditions and threats posed by Russia as well as Biden’s response and Moscow’s subsequent reaction, referring to the decisions that it may take in the future Vladimir Putinare part of a card game with marked cards and much to play.
There are too many intermediate options on the table to think that both parties are willing to continue an unstoppable escalation. If we proceed in this way, it is relatively easy to predict the political, economic and security consequences, always disproportionate. And it is, on the other hand, very difficult to guess any tangible benefit for any of those involved. From the postponement of the Atlanticization of Ukraine for better time and opportunity to the Finnishization of this country in acceptable conditions for its rulers, possessed of an active nationalism no less intense than the Russian, the range of grays is infinite and the Kremlin’s announcement of that the response to the message sent by the White House will be delayed is nothing more than a confirmation of the mutual need to play for time.
Of course there is emotional obstacles that fuel the crisis and the same goes for the United States invoking Ukraine’s right to decide for itself whether or not it wants to be a member of NATO, and for Russia to refer to what is a historical fact worth taking into account: the vast majority of Russian society does not conceive of Ukraine as a political and cultural space alien to its identity. What some historians have called the Russian outrage, the trauma that followed the dissolution of the USSR, included the fragmentation of a political territory that encompassed neighboring Belarus and Ukraine. And the nature of Putin’s presidency, an autocrat after all, is inseparable from the exploitation of that collective mood, a substantial part of Russian spontaneous culture. Half a world from there to suppose that the politics of emotions will prevail due to more maneuvers, rudeness and mobilization of troops than can be foreseen.
Related news
At the same time, The United States is far from having achieved a real unity of action in the ranks of NATO. The powerful deterrent weapon of the export of gas in Russian to Germany conditions the behavior of the Government of berlin, in the settlement phase; the claim of France having his own voice – Emmanuel Macron is waiting to hold a videoconference with Vladimir Putin – works in the same direction; Widespread fears of a shock to energy markets are keeping managers of recovering economies on their toes, which, among many other things, need stability and contain inflation.
No one has anything to gain from a radical denouement. But it is no less true that it will be extremely complex to articulate a balanced response in which no one can also claim victory.