Is the prolonged war in Ukraine, running its fifth month and with its economic implications felt worldwide, starting to raise a different train of thought in European capitals regarding the management of the military crisis vis-à-vis Russia?
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
One of the first to warn against the "lust for war" and the total recruitment on Ukraine's side was French politician, Henri Guaino, a senior advisor to former President Nicolas Sarkozy. He is considered one of the brightest analysts in France's foreign relations.
In a recent article, Guaino warned that the West is "blindly" marching towards a world war. In an interview with Israel Hayom, Guaino calls upon the West to change its attitude to Russia and to stop comparing it to Nazi Germany.
"It depends on what the involved sides will do. The war in Iraq started as a geographically limited war and then it spread, and left Iraq and Syria in ruins, created ISIS, increased terrorism, and left millions as refugees. The war turned into a crisis of a totally different dimension. This is what happened with World War One as well.
"A war is a process that is not controlled by human reality. Everyone contributes to the outset of a war. When a war breaks out – everyone contributes to making it more extreme. At some point, we are at a point of no return. Maybe this war will expand and reach Europe. It has already affected the global economy.
"Many countries are not participating in sanctions against Russia and are suffering the price of these sanctions. There is a weakening of the world order. It is clear that Russia bears the main responsibility for the war. But when we start to banish Russia from the international stage, we contribute to strengthening worldwide instability. Nobody knows if the situation will worsen, or if we will be able to control it.
"There is no way of knowing. Have all the players in this tragedy done the best they can to prevent this war? The escalation began in 1991 with the fall of the USSR, which was, in fact, the fall of the Russian Empire. Every collapse of an empire creates difficulties, the complications of which cannot be estimated. Empires are constructed like a mosaic of nations, that merge together and form strong ties. It is very difficult to determine borders that are suitable for different nations. This is true also regarding Russia.
Today there are 25 million Russians living outside its borders because the borders that were defined with the fall of the USSR were based on administrative borders for the Russian Empire. Today there are Russian minorities in various counties in Europe that might cause problems. Equally, problems arose when the British decided to back out of India, problems that are still very volatile between India and Pakistan and between the Indians and the Muslims; and there are no solutions in sight."
Q: Was the West – and mainly the USA – insensitive to Moscow's concerns in light of NATO's redeployment eastwards, or was this possibly a Western intention to push Russia into a conflict?
"The situation was escalated by both sides, who were suspicious of each other. Russia had one goal: a role in the management of the New World Order after the downfall of the USSR. Many world powers at that time dreamt of a world that would be ruled by many forces, and not only one superpower. Some assumed that NATO would become a collective security organization with more players.
It then evolved that the USA wanted a world ruled solely by the West, with itself at its head, filling the role of worldwide policeman. There was the victory of the Wilson approach in which the USA plays a messianic position in changing the world, according to the America model. This led rise to the idea that the world must westernize itself. The messianic ideology of westernizing the world also affected NATO's development.
NATO's original purpose was a defensive alliance against the Cold War. It continued to exist despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and turned into an alliance regarded by the Russians as an anti-Russian agreement, because it spread all the way to their borders. The tension between NATO and Russia started with the adoption of the open-door policy towards NATO, enabling every country to join them.
"The first eastern European countries started joining in 1999. The West began to get involved also in the internal business of Serbia; a historical ally of Russia, without respecting the rules that were valid for the rest of the world. This led to the bombing of Belgrade and the separation of Kosovo from Serbia. This was the first significant blow from the West. Then there was the war in Afghanistan, which started as a war against el Kaida and the Taliban, and developed into a new situation, and the war in Iraq. The Russians felt that they were being treated like an insignificant superpower, whose aspirations must be brought down."
'The good side'
"Each side regards the other as responsible for the escalation. When one camp regards itself as the good people, they march inevitably into a war without boundaries, because in war, all is permitted in the name of good. The loftiest goals in war have ended in the most heinous crimes and massacres. We, in the West, have an obligation towards what happened in Ukraine, and that is why we cannot call ourselves 'the good side'."
"The moment we compare Russia to Nazi Germany and Putin to Hitler – we must be prepared for an all-out war. It is impossible to stop the war against Hitler. If we are facing someone like Hitler – we have to go all the way, at any price, and we will be walking into a disaster. Alternately – we must find ways out. This is the responsibility of politics."
"War is the exact opposite of politics. The war started when politics ended. An additional risk is thinking that everyone is acting rationally, that deterrence will take action and nobody will cross red lines. This is an extreme risk, because red lines are frequently crossed."
Q: What do you think about President Emmanuel Macron's statement that we must not disgrace Russia?
"It is impossible to separate between Russia as it is today and Putin. If Putin is removed from his position, a new situation will be created. I understand the idea behind Macron's statement, but the moment we talk about degradation, we assume that the other side has been defeated. Ukraine must not lose and Russia cannot lose. Russia will not allow itself to be degraded.
We cannot do to Russia what was done to Germany in World War One, as this turned it into the most dangerous country in the world. If Russia becomes the most dangerous country in the world, the outcome will be disastrous. It has nuclear arsenal, and the Russian nation will be prepared for the worst of all. Saying that we must weaken Russia so that it does not threaten the West again is a repetition of what was said about Germany in 1918.
"We will not get rid of Russia. European countries and the USA are not ready for a all-out war against Russia. The other option is to recognize that the dangers of the current situation are immense for both sides and find solutions."
A Period of Weakness
Is the understanding that the Western democracies are in a period of weakness, one of the things that pushed Putin to war?
"One always talks about the weakness of the other side. Many in the West thought that Putin would not dare to go out to war. Putin thought that the West would not dare to get involved in a war in Ukraine. They were all wrong in their bets and that caused the escalation, as we see it now. This is a war between Russia and the West, and between the West and part of the world. The Americans say that Russia must be weakened so that the Chinese learn a lesson. The conversation around this war is way past the first stage of the battle, when we had to save the Ukrainians.
"If this war continues for a long time, it will become a significant factor in worldwide instability. If Russia is removed from all international organizations, what will remain in the world order, which is, in any case, in a crisis? In such circumstances – what stance will Brazil, India, the Middle East and part of Africa take? This is a dangerous game, and the longer it goes on – the shock waves are spreading further and further."
Q: Do you think that this war is a war between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes?
"What do you mean? That the authoritarian regimes want to ruin the liberal democracies? Or vice versa? If this is the situation, we are in a world war. Russia has never been authoritarian, just as China was never authoritarian. In what name and at what price can the liberal democratic camp imagine building a world that is like it? This is a dangerous outlook; everyone must be like it.
The West must recognize the fact that the worldwide westernization process has reached its end. Many countries around the world want the West's material culture – but not its moral and spiritual culture. There are also differences between various countries within the Western camp. France is not the USA. Italy is not Denmark. The Western democracies are in a crisis and it is difficult to preach democracy to a world, while the democratic model is coping with so many internal problems.
"I do not think that the Russians or other nations regard the Western 'Wokeism' as something enticing, but decadent, in the West. The free world must be more modest in its approach. All crusades of modern times have ended in opposite results than those which they anticipated. Iraq brought down Saddam Hussein, but they opened a Pandora Box. There are situations in which we cannot choose between good and bad."
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
