Declaration Berlin (translated)

Posted by @nsanzo

“European leaders are scheduled to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO chief Mark Rutte on Wednesday afternoon in Brussels to discuss peace plans and the possible deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine,” Politico announced on Friday, confirming what was already known: NATO is leading the effort to coordinate what may happen in the coming months in the war in Ukraine, which on the ground will depend on European countries. “In addition to Rutte and Zelensky, invited participants include: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish President Andrzej Duda, European Council President António Costa, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen,” the outlet added, to show who the main actors are in preparing for the possibility of a significant reduction in the United States’ role in the day-to-day running of the war.

However, this meeting is not the only initiative in which these and other countries are participating, together with the European Union and NATO, in their task of maintaining control of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and preventing a move to a diplomatic path that the European countries do not consider favourable. Physical proximity to the conflict is one aspect that differentiates the continental countries from their American ally. This is precisely Donald Trump’s argument for leaving the management of the conflict in European hands once it is on track in a way that Washington considers acceptable. Much more interested in defeating Russia than Donald Trump, whose party has a current that advocates a rapprochement with Russia to deprive Beijing of its strategic ally in Moscow, the European countries are looking for a way to guarantee the status quo of the war regime, even if this means accepting the possibility that a ceasefire may occur. In this approach, which attempts to camouflage the desire to continue the war until Ukraine meets the common goals of destroying Russia and completely breaking up the continent as a brave fight for justice, a ceasefire is not a step towards peace but an obstacle or even a betrayal. This is how Ukraine seems to see it, which, contrary to Donald Trump’s statements, who claims that Zelensky wants to end the war and is seeking an agreement with Russia, reacted by aggressively rejecting the Hungarian proposal for a Christmas ceasefire. This brief pause after which the war would have resumed – as has happened with each and every attempt to cease the violence of this war in the last decade – would have helped Ukraine to ease the situation of its troops in areas where, as in the Kurajovo area, they are practically under siege.

“We, the foreign ministers of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, as well as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, met today with the foreign minister of Ukraine at a decisive moment in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” begins the Berlin Declaration, the manifesto with which the chosen countries insist on their unconditional support for Kiev. The text is not the umpteenth reaffirmation that the Western countries will support Ukraine as long as necessary , but rather the confirmation that the approach of a just peace has been adopted as its own , a formulation that should not be misleading despite the beauty of the words. “The objectives of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine and of lasting security for Europe are inseparable. Ukraine must prevail,” the declaration states. With these two simple sentences, the signatory countries accept as their own the idea that Ukraine has tried so hard to establish, that its security is collective security and that its downfall would also be the downfall of Europe. In fact, as high-ranking officials such as Mikhail Podolyak have repeatedly stated, the loss of Ukraine to Russian hands would be a complete defeat of Western civilization – a concept that, when framed as a struggle between Europe and the afterlife, as the President’s Office adviser does, is notoriously racist. More explicit than any Ukrainian official, however, has been Boris Johnson. “If Ukraine falls, it will be a catastrophe for the West. It will be the end of Western hegemony and we will have no one to blame but ourselves,” the former British prime minister said in a video posted on social media.

The threat of catastrophe demands assistance and brotherhood. “After more than 1,000 days of Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, we remain steadfast in our solidarity. We will continue to support Ukraine in its right to self-defense against Russian aggression,” the statement reaffirms, the most important content of which is the implications of that right to self-defense in the conditions in which it occurs. After condemning the Russian invasion, the escalation of attacks on energy infrastructure and the presence of North Korean troops in the war – without mentioning, of course, that these troops are fighting in the Russian Kursk region, for which Russia does not have to give explanations to any of the signatory countries – the statement reiterates its “firm support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” This mention is a way of reaffirming support for the restoration of the internationally recognised borders of 1991, that is, the recovery of Crimea and Donbass, in the latter case, without the guarantees of political rights implied by the Minsk agreements, considered unviable by kyiv and its allies. The Ukrainian failure to comply with the only peace agreements signed in this war or the fact that the return of these territories without security guarantees for their population was a way of rewarding the initial Ukrainian aggression are not aspects to be taken into account by Western capitals, for which only territorial integrity is relevant, important in the countries defended by the West, although not so relevant in the opponents. All the signatory countries collaborated in the illegal invasion of Iraq or in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, countries that apparently did not deserve compliance with international legislation, international humanitarian law, non-interference by foreigners in internal affairs or protection of their sovereignty.

“We will increase military, economic and financial assistance to Ukraine, including by mobilizing additional European funds. We stress that a swift and collective implementation of the $50 billion G7 loan, in which Europeans play a major role, will help Ukraine meet urgent needs, including military ones. We remain committed to supporting Ukraine’s repair, recovery and reconstruction, in coordination with international partners. Italy will host the 2025 Ukraine Recovery Conference. We will continue to limit the build-up of Russia’s military capabilities. We will put more pressure on the Kremlin’s sources of revenue, including from energy,” the statement continued, outlining the steps that the signatory countries will continue to take next year. More funding to pay for the weapons with which to continue the war, loans at the expense of retained Russian assets and reparations based on the conference model to promote the neoliberal path of privatisation, financialisation and impoverishment that have already been held these past two years in London and Berlin are the basis of European policy with regard to Ukraine.

Despite the proximity of the front and the spectre of warmongering that is haunting Europe, there is not a single hint in this speech of a search for a viable resolution to the conflict. Ukraine is aware that it lacks the military strength to achieve its objective of expelling Russia from Donbass or Crimea, regions in which the return of the territory would have to be carried out against majority opinion, and, since before the Russian invasion, Zelensky has made it clear publicly that this part of the population is unwanted (in his Christmas speech in 2021, the president called on this population that feels Russian, the majority, for example, in Crimea, to move to Russia). Although he recognises that it is not possible today, the military route is the only one by which Ukraine could achieve its objective of reintegrating all the territories according to their internationally recognised borders. The reaffirmation that this is the objective and the enumeration of measures to achieve it is a de factoacceptance of this reality.

The will to maintain the war regime in the long term is reflected both in the political position and in the measures to support it. “There can be no peace negotiations in Ukraine without the Ukrainians, and without the Europeans at their side,” the statement says, demanding a place at the negotiating table alongside Kiev to dialogue solely according to the Ukrainian approach. “We reaffirm our commitment to President Zelensky’s Peace Formula, as a credible path to a just and lasting peace.” The just and lasting peace of Zelensky’s plan implies the unilateral withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire Ukrainian territory, security guarantees only for Ukraine – that is, entry into NATO – and not for the forcibly reintegrated population, and military tribunals exclusively for Russian crimes, an approach that Kiev could only impose after having militarily defeated Russia, something that even the Ukrainian president knows will not happen. To cling to this proposal as a viable approach is to deny any possibility of negotiated peace.

Once peace is rejected, only warmongering remains. “Convinced that peace in Ukraine and security in Europe are inseparable, we are determined to remain united with our European and transatlantic partners in thinking and acting on a grand scale in terms of European security,” insist NATO and the select group of European member countries, adding that “we see this as an opportunity to renew the foundations of the transatlantic Alliance with the United States of America, by strengthening NATO and ensuring a fair burden-sharing within the Alliance, including by increasing EU efforts in the areas of security and defence, and by building a safer and more united Europe.” The rhetoric of peace and continental security ultimately leads back to square one: a more militarised Europe, subservient to the interests of the United States and trying to present NATO, one of the main causes of the current Russo-Ukrainian war, as the solution to all ills.