There was no threat of a World War III though Russia invaded Ukraine recently.
The world was on the brink of an outbreak of World War III in 1962 when the then Soviet President Khrushchev agreed with Cuban President Fidel Castro to deploy Soviet nuclear missile launchers on the territory of Cuba, and the deployment was actually made. It was at that time US President John F. Kennedy threatened his Soviet counterpart that if the Soviet Union did not withdraw the missile launchers and cancel the planned deployment of more launchers, the US Army would be ordered to launch a strike on them, and it would be - as Kennedy threatened - World War III!
After this ultimatum, Khrushchev agreed to completely withdraw the missile launchers from Cuba. Only a few people know that Khrushchev’s approval was not free of charge, but was in the form of a secret barter system, away from the public statements of Khrushchev and Kennedy. This was that America would withdraw the missile launchers that it had deployed in Turkey on the condition that the Soviets would also withdraw their launchers from Cuba. It was that agreement or more precisely the bartering that saved the world from the danger of a World War III in the last moment.
What do we understand from this example, when today history is being repeated in one way or the other on the territory of Ukraine? In my opinion, the political solution to the Ukrainian crisis is through an agreement similar to the one that was concluded between Khrushchev and Kennedy, to stop the expansion of NATO, and of course America, to the Russian borders, and Ukraine’s pledges not to join NATO or the European Union, at least for the next 50 years. This would be helpful to avoid posing any threat to Russia’s security from its southwestern part, as well as a halt to the entire operations of the Russian naval fleet in the Black Sea. This would also give strength to Ukraine’s position and the legal support to claim the Crimean Island, which was the focal point for the continuance of the Russian navy’s operations in the Black Sea for decades.
In return, Russia should stop its war in Ukraine and pledge not to continue aggression against Ukraine in multiple ways. Is such a trade-off between the parties to the conflict possible? Yes. Is Ukraine obligated under international law to win Russia’s approval to join NATO? No.
But when the issue is a threat to the national security of a country with the size of Russia, Ukraine and its president must swallow this political reality from the principle that politics is “the art of the possible,” and that its president should stop chasing the mirage of American and European military support in his war with the Russians or the idea of joining NATO. Of course, America, Europe and NATO, will eventually consider Ukraine as a mere “collateral damage” in front of their agreements with a country with the size of Russia. No matter how much intense was the Western rhetorical support or boycott of Western brands for Russia! It is a fact that today the Ukrainian president and his people are clearly aware of this.
In order to understand well the principle that the “existence threat” and Russia’s national security are superior to international law. Imagine the prospect if the government that comes to power in Mexico, the largest country in terms of shared borders with America, is pro-Russia and not friendly to America, and that Russia decided to deploy its missile launchers inside Mexico and close to the US border, which is not contrary to international law. But how do you think America will react to this act of Russia and Mexico in the face of what it will see as a threat to its existence and national security? Yes, the scenario would then be catastrophic.
The situation of Ukrainian President Zelensky today is literally identical to that of the Hungarian revolutionary leader Lajos Koshut earlier, specifically in the middle of the 19th century when he led an uprising for the secession of Hungary from the Austrian Empire. Even before Koshut rose to the leadership of the uprising, America and Britain presented him as “The hero of democracy in Europe,” with creating an impression that they were behind his uprising with all means of support. However, as soon as he led his uprising (as Zelensky seeks today) to disengage from Austria and Russia and turned towards the West, Russia intervened with its army along with the Austrian Empire, and suppressed his uprising.
Neither America nor Britain moved a finger at that time in any form of support except for that rhetoric, which was archived in the form of statements of some members of the American Congress or the British House of Commons.
Koshute was banished from the country. Then, he traveled to America and Britain where he tried desperately to obtain political support to lead a new uprising in Hungary. But he did not find any response similar to “Satan” who tempted man, and then said to him: “I am innocent of you!” As stated in a number of books that dealt with his uprising, Koshut became very remorseful later, a day when regret was useless as he believed in the West’s support for his movement to establish a democratic Hungary in the Western style.
From the Hungarian historical lesson mentioned above, there are projections from it that concern Arabs in the first place. It gives us a historical indication of the beginning of America’s interventions in the affairs of other countries since the mid-19th century, leading to the chaos of its interventions in our region, the last of which wa the chaos of the so-called Arab Spring.
In conclusion, the president of Ukraine should read history well, and look at the balances of power as well as at Ukraine’s geopolitical and strategic position realistically. Russia today is leading its own war in Europe, and it is not a proxy war, as happened in Yugoslavia between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia.
Geography, history, politics or the interests themselves do not intersect here with the Ukraine crisis, and not even with the politicians themselves!
