The Ukrainian crisis and the preference for a political solution

For several weeks, the world has been living on its nerves with the impact of the crisis revolving around Ukraine, and the silent majority hopes that a political solution to the crisis will be found, because the alternative would be a disaster. The seriousness of what is happening there is that it is very similar to those crises that preceded the outbreak of the First and Second World Wars in the twentieth century and were a direct cause of their outbreak, especially the Second World War, when Germany, which was defeated in the first war, tried to regain the areas stripped from it by the victors.

The roots of the current Ukrainian crisis go back to the early nineties of the twentieth century, specifically to the oral guarantees given by Western leaders to the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, guarantees that NATO would not expand to the east, in exchange for the unification of Germany and the exit of Central and Eastern European countries from the Warsaw Pact. James Baker, Secretary of State of the United States of America under President George Bush Sr., famously said at the time: "Not an inch to the east." This sentence was echoed by the same or in the same content the German Chancellor at the time Helmut Kohl, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterrand.

The problem at the time was that James Baker’s sentence “Not an inch to the east” was not documented in writing, which allowed the United States to think and then implement the expansion of NATO by including Central European countries such as Poland, Roumania, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Despite the opposition of Western European countries to such a step at the time, NATO continued its expansion in the east until it became concerned about Russia, especially since the latter had risen from the setback it suffered after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. "Not an inch in the east," especially since NATO has reached the borders of Russia directly and is almost encircling it from the west and southwest.

In the American response that Biden sent to Putin a few days ago, it does not include a written promise not to include Ukraine in NATO, and Putin insists that the guarantees that Gorbachev took verbally that he would take it in writing, so he demands the withdrawal of NATO forces and weapons from Bulgaria and Roumania as well. Today we are in front of a major political and strategic impasse for both parties. Neither Putin can back down nor Biden can give written guarantees, because he is like the one who condemns NATO to extinction.

The Ukrainian crisis is a very serious crisis and it needs wisdom and deliberation. History has taught us that with such crises, major wars that destroy everyone can erupt. From here, creative political solutions are required that preserve world peace, solutions that reduce Russia's fears by providing the necessary guarantees to preserve its national security while preserving the people's desires for independence and sovereignty.

And between Putin and Biden comes a confused Europe in the middle. It does not want to be drawn in any way to this aggravating conflict or any other devastating war. It is true that not all European countries are on the same position, but no one is sane in this old continent, which has tasted the horror of wars. Twice as much, he might want the Ukraine crisis to turn into a war, and I don't think that's Putin's goal, and Biden doesn't want it either, because any war would be very costly to everyone. The solution is to first provide mutual guarantees from the West that Ukraine and Belarus will not be included in NATO in exchange for Russian guarantees that Ukraine will not invade, as a first step followed by steps that reconsider the current content of European security, which has proven to be fragile and liable to collapse at any moment, and then the institutions are being modernised The European Union is based on this, not only with the aim of preventing wars, but also in order to strengthen the means of cooperation and partnership between its countries.

As for the further step, it is to reconsider NATO itself, which is one of the remnants of the Cold War, because the alliance's persistence with the logic it exists now will lead to thinking about establishing a Russian-Chinese alliance with other countries to match it... Are we on the cusp of another Cold War? And the more accurate question is, do we - and I mean humanity - need another cold or non-cold war? There are two institutions in Europe: the European Union and the Council of Europe. The union includes only the European member states of the union. As for the Council, its membership is open to all states, and in this sense it is the best institution for the concept of European security.

We in the Middle East are not far, neither geographically, politically, nor militarily, from the Ukrainian crisis. This crisis is taking place on the northern borders of the Middle East, and the region will not be safe if war breaks out there, as Turkey will not be far from the conflict, but rather is a candidate to be part of it as soon as it occurs, and Iran will become the next chess piece for any conflict between Russia and the United States if Deciding the matter of Ukraine this way or that. In the middle come Syria and Israel, in the first there is the Russian military presence, which may find itself in a confrontation with Israel at any moment the conflict expands.

That is why we should prefer a political solution to the Ukrainian crisis because its military repercussions are terrifying for everyone.