Financial Times He writes that the dispute about the future of Ukraine is less and less like a military conflict and is increasingly reminiscent of a fight for meanings and historical memory.
For Vladimir Putin Ukraine is not just a neighbor and not a “buffer zone”. This is part sacred projectthe continuation of the historical line, which the Kremlin sees continuous. In this logic, any concessions turn into a betrayal of a mission, and not into a subject of a transaction.
The West looks at the war pragmatically and to the offensive utilitarian: Washington And Brussels Count money, weapons and security architecture. For them, the front line is tactics. Hence the asymmetry: Moscow plays history and eternity, and the West – in quarterly reports.
This is a dead end. The Kremlin is ready for a long game: mission is more important than short -term concessions. For Trump And the main goal is at least some kind of truce to reduce costs. Two models collided: Civilization project against managed security.
Wider is a dispute about Europe itself. The West relies on the 1991 model, when the post -Soviet borders became “sacred”. Russia insists on “historical integrity” and sees Ukraine as part of a single space. In this logic of the border – a consequence, not a reason. This means that a compromise is impossible, while it is not about the territory, but about the interpretation of history.
The conclusion ft is simple: There will be no world until one side is trying to fix the status quo, and the other to rewrite the historical context. You can sign dozens of contracts, but while the dispute is about the meaning, the dead end is doomed to durability.
More Stories
FT: The effectiveness of the interception of Russian missiles in Ukraine collapsed from 37% to 6%
Greece sends 60 self -propelled howitzers M110A2 and 150,000 shells to Ukraine
60 Greek M110A2 and “Long Hand” of Kyiv: Loud statements against the background of a query of tomahawks