On Wednesday, Pope Francis arrived in Lisbon to participate in World Youth Day (WYD) and meet with Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.
During a speech at the Belem cultural center, he lamented that the European countries do not offer “creative ways” to end the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The Argentine Pope also stressed the need to respect the original mission of the European Union (EU).
In front of the authorities, diplomatic corps and members of civil society, Francis recalled that the 2007 reform of the European Union states that this integration bloc “has the purpose of promoting peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.”
The Lisbon Treaty goes further “by stating that in its relations with the rest of the world… it will contribute to peace, security, sustainable development of the planet, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free trade and justice, the eradication of poverty, and the protection of human rights,” Francis recalled.
Europe’s original mission was “to open paths for dialogue and inclusion, developing a peace diplomacy that extinguishes conflicts and alleviates tensions, capable of capturing the slightest signs of détente and reading between the most crooked lines,” he added.
Pope Francis then asked Europe, “Where are you sailing, if you do not offer peace processes, creative paths to end the war in Ukraine and so many conflicts that bloody the world?”
How would it be good for Russia?
Carving up Ukraine’s territorial integrity is breeding grounds for further border conflicts. Do you think Ukrainians are going to simply sit and quietly forget about it if Russia steals their territory, or will it remain an open wound that provokes them to retaliate in any way they can for decades to come?
Well I think that ship has largely sailed, unfortunately. At this point I would think Russia is incentivized to hold as much territory as they can. I don’t see it being returned really changing the relationship or border situation too substantially.
You don’t think relations between Russia and Ukraine will not mend sooner, in historical terms, if this war ends in a white peace, rather than with Russia keeping Ukrainian territories? Being invaded will remain a traumatic memory for most Ukrainians for the rest of their lives, but forever losing a chunk of their country will contribute to keeping that wound open and will favor nationalist, anti-Russian rhetoric in their politics, which will absolutely remove the possibility of ever initiating a new chapter in their relationship with Russia.
Well, this is one possible outcome, although not necessary. For example Finland was able to patch it’s relations with Russia after 2 brutal wars with tens of thousands of casualties and a huge chunk of lost land. Of course the friendly relations were somewhat forced and a survival mechanism for a small country in Cold War era (Russia had a hold on Finland while Finland navigated in it’s position to gain as much political freedoms it could) but it genuinely got rid of open hostilities between the countries.
Even after the cold war ended and up to today, majority of the population in Finland has not had a revanchist opinion towards Russians, albeit they were not fully trusted either. Finns learned to live as neighbors and in peace while preparing just in case.
So while it is probably likely that loosing land would cause a negative nationalistic turn in Ukraine and grievances towards Russia, it’s not set in stone. Actually I am way more concerned that if Russia can claim a victory, they expand their delirious imperial/quasifascist project and escalate the conflict with the west further.
You may be right, it’s hard to say. But even then, the benefits of stolen land are substantial and indefinite. I think it’s a hard sell to say that Russia benefits from a total defeat here.
If beaten in Ukraine, there is a chance that the trajectory of the Russian Federation changes. Currently they are trying to fulfill a senseless imperial project which is doomed to eventually fail.
With defeat in Ukraine, there’s a chance that the growing destabilization within Russia leads to abandonment of the imperial dream. It might also force a change in the leadership albeit not necessarily for the better. What it would do however, is to show that the Putinist system is not the only option and that the actions it has taken, are in fact harmful for Russia and Russians. In a way, it opens up a way to politicize the apolitical Russian public.
In the semi long/long term this would benefit the population as it would not only challenge the idea of Russia as an Empire, but also allow for a less authoritarian model of governance.
I think it’s a little too hard to predict what will end up better for the Russian people. As you say, there’s no guarantee that a post-Putin Russia is necessarily a better one. But there are many paths that lead to a more democratic and free Russia, and many that may emerge from any outcome of the war.
Sure. One thing is pretty certain though: thing won’t be getting better under the current regime.