The Russia-Ukraine conflict: a reflection of the failure of politics and diplomacy

At this moment, does the Ukrainian state identify itself more with the wishes of its ruler, or with those of its people? Let's be clear: the principle of self-determination that Zelensky seems to be inclined to defend could be defined as the principle under which each people (State) would have the right (in a purely a-technical sense) to "live free from any type of oppression, both internal and external ". So, if this is the case, then it should be agreed in recognizing that the achievement and / or conservation of one's self-determination and sovereignty cannot in any way disregard an equally fundamental principle of "awareness" as the inspiring moment of political, diplomatic and demilitarized of a Head of State who wants to be recognized as such. All the more so when we want to consider that the right to self-determination, if this is really the end, the teleologically understood aim, of the Ukrainian "resistance", although it is a necessary condition to guarantee the enjoyment of individual rights, nevertheless it would seem to lack the necessary sufficiency to achievement of the result since the achievement of independence with respect to a potential aggressor (Vladimir Putin) does not automatically translate into the correlative recognition of a fundamental right (precisely the right to self-determination) however conditional on the successful outcome of a compromise which, mutatis mutandis, in terms apparently welcomed by the Ukrainian president, it only represents the "voluntary acceptance" of a condition of neutrality and disarmament that is actually not wanted.

First, because the acceptance (selfishly desirable in very general terms to ensure the cessation of military operations) of that condition of neutrality could appear to be the negation of that principle of self-determination that it was said to want to preserve. So why, all in all, the "conditional" acceptance of the condition of neutrality (forgive the pun) would still, and roughly, translate into a "deminutio" of sovereignty that is difficult to explain to the Ukrainian people animated by the romantic ideal, but unrealistic, of a resistance to the bitter end that would seem to have contributed to prolonging an already too excruciating agony. Finally, because the translation, in legal terms, of any compromise of peace between Russia and Ukraine could only pass through the acceptance of a desire for "coexistence" between the two peoples in the abstract, but only in the abstract, variously "subjects" but not equally self-determined. In short: the full operation of the principle of self-determination personified by the Ukrainian resistance seems to be destined to clash with the instrumental declamation of its deepest concept. Military operations have gone on too long to justify mutual or desirable failures as such.

For its part, Russia would seem to have referred to next May 9 as the final moment of its special military operation. A significant date if we consider, among other things, that for us Westerners that is the Day of Europe intended to commemorate the so-called "Shuman Declaration", and which marked not only the end of the Second World War, but also the start of the European integration process with the aim of a future federal union. Perhaps, and I mean perhaps, it would be appropriate to meditate more carefully on the circumstance. The Russian-Ukrainian affair, in fact, is neither more nor less than the reflection of the failure of politics and diplomacy lived with a democratic and libertarian spirit. Its very "muscular" conduction, the covertly acquiescent attitude of the West represent the negation in terms of every principle of freedom and self-determination that it is said to want to affirm. How many deaths will we still have to count before we reach a table of peace with a resolutive spirit?

Giuseppina Di Salvatore

(Lawyer - Nuoro)