There is no large Wall of China between war and diplomacy. Sometimes diplomacy leads to war, and that war ends with diplomatic negotiations, that only victories or military disasters lead to certain diplomatic solutions.
There is besides war and war. Carl von Clausewitz he wrote about the absolute war, that is, 1 determined from a general theoretical point of view. specified a war has 1 general goal—to defeat the opponent and to accomplish its goals. But this knowing of war is represented by both sides, and simultaneous implementation of opposing goals is not possible.
For war activates so many factors in the state that a man accustomed to average logic will see that he will only be aware of his weakness, imperfection and inconsistency. As a result, war will become something another than the first idea. so Clausewitz besides talked about the real war, that is, conducted according to conditions and possibilities. The real war must be viewed “not from the very point of view of its concept, but by considering all the abroad things that are to be mixed up and joined into it, [...] war breaks out and takes form not as the final account of the countless circumstances which it touches, but due to the fewer among them, the dominant ones. So it follows from itself that it involves a game of opportunity, probability, happiness and misery, with strict logical reasoning frequently getting completely lost and becoming a very inefficient and uncomfortable instrument of the head at all. It besides shows that war can be a phenomenon that erstwhile less, erstwhile more is war” [1]. It's like present to say that war is erstwhile a war and another time a hybrid war.
Dynamic causes of war in Ukraine
The definition of Clausewitz wars is widely known as a continuation of politics only by another military means and means. This definition shows that the causes of wars are related to the policy pursued, i.e. to the interests of peculiar classes and layers on the interior and global arenas. Depending on how profoundly we plunge into politics and go back in time, we can get different causes of the same war.
The main origin of all national and national conflicts in the russian area was the dissolution of the russian Union, the collapse of socialism and the exacerbation of contradictions as a consequence of capitalist transformation. Strong national and border contradictions existed besides in Tsarist Russia, and in the russian Union, but they were suppressed by the fact that 1 state resided, and exercised power with a hard hand. It dissolved due to interior socio-economic contradictions and fierce class struggle, which the present Russian and Ukrainian hurra-patriots do not want to know and do not want to analyse. The disintegration of the russian Union took place without consideration of past feuds and conflicts, which caused these conflicts to be inherited by the recently created states, having no experience in solving them, and accompanying them to this day. The strongest has so far been the conflict of the Russian Federation with Ukraine. But any weakening of Russia will be able to produce the spread of conflicts of the russian republics, with their neighbouring states that were not part of the USSR.
Even within russian society, the governing layer began to form, which later became mostly capitalists (burge), or a political decision created a class called oligarchs. This did not begin in the years of the perestroika, the "failure" Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Jelcinbut much earlier. The contradictions of russian society were only further compounded by these contradictions and conflicts, which carried with it a perestroika and a public capitalist transformation. The contradictions it brought, throughout the russian territory, have been compounded by external contradictions circumstantial to imperialism.
It should besides be stressed that nationalist sentiments began to form and strengthen relations early, even in the times of the USSR, erstwhile individual national republics and regions began to receive the freedom to have the profits they had from businesses in their territory. They began to intensify their particularisms and efforts to keep their profits at home, in order to "give them to Moscow as small as possible". More profitable jobs did not want to share profits with other, little successful ones on the market. At the same time, the blame for all the difficulties was on the “mountain” and “center”. So formed separatist sentiments gave a fresh boost to nationalism, on the basis of commodity-monetary relations began to spread very rapidly among the masses of working nations, and were additionally with all power and perfidy fueled from the outside, by those who hoped to completely break up Russia. During the period of the capitalist transformation in Russia and adjacent republics, conflicts were more only in Africa and the mediate East, which shows how drastic the capitalist social contradictions were.
The dissolution of the russian Union had socio-economic and political effects, the social structure and interests of individual classes and republics changed. Since Russia's war with Ukraine took place more than 30 years after the collapse of the russian Union, not everyone sees the link between the 2 events. Ukrainian nationalism was aware of and tolerated from the first years after the October Revolution, and was softened, among another things, by the fact that Ukrainians included the most crucial offices in the PCD and the russian state, and Ukraine from a backward periphery owned in the past to respective states, was transformed into the most developed republic of the russian Union. But the persistence of nationalism has made the view of Ukraine producing more than self-resisting, widespread, deep and indisputable.
The Russian Federation took on the repayment of abroad russian debts, but demanded participation in the assets and ownership of privatized economies of the russian republics. In this way Russia tried to proceed to keep not only economical but besides political influences in isolated countries. Of course, they did not like it, and due to the improvement of individualist liberalism and neoliberalism, hostility to Russia became common especially among the younger generation. Ukrainian nationalism persisted erstwhile it was essential to share the russian Black Sea fleet, extend for Russia the lease of black sea ports and pay back its share of the "long" hauled before the another republics. Moreover, relations between these countries have been more dynamic since the beginning of the capitalist transition, as not 2 parties, but at least four, have participated in the conflict and each of them has pursued its objectives. The conflict was mainly between Russian, Ukrainian, European, American and Chinese capital. In time, under force from the US and the European Union, Russian capital began to be forced to sale its assets, and erstwhile this did not result, Russian shares were nationalised.
Ukraine declared its willingness to join the European Union, and this would mean a massive influx of EU goods into Ukraine. However, in view of the duty-free trade in goods of Russia and Ukraine, these goods would arrive in Russia in bulk and endanger its industry. Ukraine would become a large transshipment hub for the European Union and would make immense profits. Russia wanted to talk to Ukraine about this and someway regulate it, but Ukraine did not make any talks.
The causes of the war in Ukraine are so rather different and frequently opposed to what the Kiev authorities besides say. The awareness of the causes of the war is defined there by the alleged information field, that is, by authoritative propaganda, due to the fact that all opposition in Ukraine has been abolished and with it all independent sources of information. And specified information in Ukraine became the authoritative position of the European Union and the US for presidents Joe Bidena, as specified information was applicable to their interests and purposes. On the another hand, the awareness of the causes of the war in Russia is confused in a different way, by ideological appeals to the “National War”, the maintenance of “Russian mira”, and after Ukraine has explicitly adopted anti-Russian laws, by “defence of Russian language and the Russian-speaking population”.
Russian leadership in the 1990s, deciding on the dissolution of the USSR, had a misconception of modern capitalism and shared delusions – with the tenacity worthy of neophytes the principles of neoliberal bourgeois economy were expressed. And in response, many politicians in the republics were happy to give opinions about the “end of history”, that Russia as an empire ended eventually, and began to search for the best economical unions and global alliances for its countries.
Ukraine did not build anything in the 1990s, did not invest, there was a process of deindustrialization and dominance of neoliberal economy. alleged businessmen were active in stealing what the russian Union left them. This was mostly at the expense of Donbas, which was developed according to the needs of the full russian Union. For Ukraine itself, Donbas with the developed dense manufacture in these sizes was superfluous, and Ukraine either way began its liquidation as an industrial center, partially through its sale, partially through the closure of plants. This triggered the anti-Ukrainian separatist aspirations of the Russian-speaking population and hopes of salvation from Russia. The Ukrainian authorities, in order to suppress these hopes, sent tanks and aircraft against civilians in 2014, allowing many crimes by pacification troops, sometimes composed of criminals and mercenaries. But in this way the authorities themselves in Kiev questioned the unity and territorial full of Ukraine.
The criminal nature of the Ukrainian elite can be demonstrated by the fact that in 1990 Ukraine had GDP 2.5 times greater than Poland, and before peculiar Military Operations 2.5 times lower. The same happened in Russia, which only intensified problems in Ukraine and fueled further and so strong Ukrainian nationalism already. Everywhere in the 1990s, predatory capitalism was the same. It was a real war on everybody, against everything. Russia's share of planet trade decreased over 30 years from 9 to little than 3 percent. The Ukrainian Oligarchy was mainly enriched with trade with Russia and seemed a certain ally to Russia, but time showed that it had far further-reaching ambitions. In view of the deindustrialisation of Russia and Ukraine and the stagnation of their economical improvement and the wealth of narrow elites, this has led to an increase in exploitation of most societies and to an increase in contradictions and threats of interior social conflicts. Russia's Oligarchy to channel increasing social discontent reached into the ideology of the "one nation", Orthodoxy and Russian Mirus, and Ukraine's elite to the ideology of flagism (neofashism), attempting to hide in it the interests of its oligarchy and brewing in the economy of global corporations and investment funds.
From a global point of view, Russia could not avoid this war, and Putin's crew understood it, after Zelenski started talking about atomic weapons for Ukraine at the applause of the Munich Peace Conference Auditorium. As a consequence of the launch of peculiar Military Operations, Russia was hailed by the West as an aggressor. But the war actually began with a fight between Russia's oligarchs and Ukraine's oligarchs initially supported by the West, but later pushed to the next stage. And now, to fight in Ukraine, remnants of human reserves are being cast mobilized by real street hunting on possible recruits. The immense losses of the Ukrainian army, the awareness of the imminent death on the front and the disclosure of the immense scale of corruption of Zelenski's crew made no 1 want to die for it.
The continuation of the war means for Zelenski's squad the anticipation of temporarily staying in power and hiding uncomfortable evidence of the crime, but yet making even tougher demands by Russia. For Russia, the favourable situation on the front allows to hope to accomplish its goals by military means, although it would like a little costly diplomatic path. Europe, on the another hand, wants to proceed the war, but there is no money for it, which is why it would like to usage Russian assets collected in western banks, i.e. it wants a war with Russia, but at its expense, hoping that this money would contribute partially to its economy and the US.
Changing the nature of war and its objectives
Russia's peculiar military operation in Ukraine has changed its character. There have been fresh reasons why Western Europe and the US are prolonging this war erstwhile the Ukrainian army's mobilization capabilities are exhausted and there are scenes of blood-freezing in the veins in the streets of cities. At its beginning, Russia identified as targets denasification, demilitarisation and, therefore, democratisation of Ukraine. Ukraine, according to authoritative declarations, fought for its sovereignty, the right to join NATO and the European Union. But it turned out that specified goals were an ideological shield for the class purposes pursued. Neither Russia gathered the right forces and resources to accomplish them, nor Ukraine, with NATO's support, was able to make its own. These general objectives have not been achieved due to the fact that another countries have besides joined the conflict, who wanted to accomplish their own goals, and who were lukewarm or hidden before the outbreak. Thus, the well-promising Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul in 2022 were broken by Jonson's mission, Prime Minister of large Britain, thanks to the promised comprehensive assistance Ukraine in defeating Russia and its break-up into respective states. Zelenski's squad in Istanbul, fundamentally without major fights, could accomplish more than now after 4 years of war and over a million casualties. To hide this thought from the people, Zelenski's squad takes the attitude that "or he will recover everything or nothing," and in defence of this dream he does everything to bring Poland and another states straight into the war, and does not scare her even the thought of the outbreak of the real planet war.
And so the United States, which, before the outbreak of the conflict during Biden's presidency, acted with full determination to defend democracy, the sovereignty of Ukraine and human rights, sought to hide their real goals. They revealed them abruptly at the minute erstwhile Ukraine began to clearly weaken and lose on a military level. Trump demanded that Ukraine give the United States control over its natural wealth and infrastructure. And strangely enough, despite the theatrical gestures of Zelenski's opposition in Washington, D.C., Trump achieved his goals under threat of halting military aid. Ukraine was then treated as an "African country" during a period of overt colonialism. Zelenski must have made any akin promises, made by Britain in the agreement on cooperation and common assistance, which is expected to last for 100 years.
But Russia hasn't achieved its goals either, and now Trump says she's willing to compromise. erstwhile Russian troops occupied further territories of Ukraine in 2025, Putin, in order to weaken U.S. opposition to this offensive, hastened with the message that Russia can cooperate with the United States in the improvement of natural materials in occupied areas, and even in Russia itself. It should be admitted that it was a very tempting proposal for the United States and Trump, who is inactive considered president-businessman, who includes favorable contracts, sometimes bluffing, sometimes threatening, sometimes cheating.
Start of negotiations
The first major negotiations started only in 2025. Initially, the United States and the European Union, in order to halt Russia's offensive, demanded an unconditional ceasefire as a condition for peace negotiations. Russia felt strong adequate and did not want to be fooled, as before, that it did not go on this proposal, placing as a condition for Ukraine's withdrawal from the areas constitutionally incorporated into Russia, the West's cessation of arms supply to Ukraine, the cessation of mobilization and relocation of troops in Ukraine. But Ukraine, with strong support from the ruling teams in Germany, France, large Britain and Poland, refused to accept this. However, to the proposal of the governments of England, France and Germany (without money for Ukraine's military support) to confiscate the frozen Russian assets, the Belgian authorities, where most of the Russian money is made, replied negatively as they do not want to hazard additional conflict with Russia. In addition, the European Central Bank (ECB) rejected Brussels' request to safe a alleged reparation debt for Ukraine to be financed utilizing Russian frozen assets. Although Polish authorities are increasingly shouting about the necessity of war with Russia, they are all the more overlooked in negotiations, most likely at the request of Ukraine itself.
In this suspended state, although dynamic balance, Trump reported a 28-point peace plan, which, however, did not correspond to Ukraine, which shortened it initially to 19 points, removing the most crucial ones for Russia from it. The full mainstream cried out of pain – “the plan is under Putin’s dictatorship.” But is it? Russian politicians stated (whether or not they had any influence on the creation of this document) that they did not discuss with the Americans the individual wording of Trump's proposal, but their essence. This means that they have not even seen the point of discussion on this 28-point "peace plan", but they are inactive seeking the United States to adopt conditions for lasting peace, to make a sustainable safety strategy in Europe, not only to frost the conflict in Ukraine. The conflict in Ukraine and the course of borders is not the most crucial for them.
Dr Edward Karolczuk
photo of wikipedia
CDN
Think Poland, No. 1-2 (4-11.01.2026)
