Arben Papa

Four months have passed since Russia's brutal and bloody attack on Ukraine, in open violation of international laws and norms.

Despite UN condemnation and harsh sanctions, especially economic ones, Russia is not backing down from military aggression and territorial claims against this sovereign country.

But it seems that Russia has fallen into the trap it has prepared itself or into what it has entered into international relations with the term Thucydides' trap.

This term has been popularized metaphorically by American Harvard professor Graham Allison, to describe a trend toward war when a rising power threatens an existing power to gain regional or international hegemony.

The Greek historian Thucydides speaks of the war between the two Greek city-states, Sparta and Athens, in the fifth century BC, over the domination of the Greek world, where the rise of Athens and fear prompted Sparta to open war on it.

In modern times, this term symbolizes the armed conflict that can erupt between great powers or rival superpowers.

In our case, the comparison is in a different historical, political and social context.

It is a regional conflict between two neighbors, once within the USSR, whose dissolution Putin has called "the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the twentieth century."

It is first of all a territorial claim of Russia to a part of Ukraine and the alleged "fear" for its security, because Putin's Russia has conceived that the military empowerment of Ukraine with weapons from the West and especially its demand for entry as soon as possible. NATO would directly threaten its security.

It is worth noting that the "trap" for Russia is not only entering the war, but Putin's illusions of a speedy surrender of Ukraine with Zelensky at the helm and the rise to power of a pro-Russian regime did not materialize.

In our popular language we would say "enter the sea on foot".

The savage Russian attack massively nurtured the fighting and freedom-loving spirit of the Ukrainians.

The resistance and patriotism of the Ukrainian people has caused great damage to the Russian army and it is likely that the war will continue on the ground for a long time until a political and diplomatic solution.

On the other hand, Russia's military attack on Ukraine was not tolerated at all by the West and the democratic world.

In military terms, there has been a steady supply of assistance to the Ukrainian military, and this situation has united and further strengthened NATO, which is now aiming for closer enlargement to Sweden and Finland.

Also, harsh economic and financial sanctions have severely damaged the Russian economy and Russia is becoming increasingly isolated from the democratic world.

In this view it is clear that the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict is also a conflict between authoritarianism and rampant Russian nationalism and Western democratic values.

Zelensky has said several times that we are also fighting for the West.

The war between Sparta and Athens had no impact outside the contours of ancient Greece.

Today, in the age of the international system and globalization, the Russia-Ukraine war brings international geopolitical influences.

In the economic field, we see the impact on the ubiquitous increase in the price of wheat, oil, oil and gas, inflation, transport, some raw materials, etc.

The next question is whether the Russia-Ukraine war could have been avoided.

According to the logic of the time of the Greek historian, armed war in any such case is inevitable.

But for any historian or political scholar of our time, the war between Sparta and Athens could even have been avoided if they had better managed the problems between them.

History tells us that not all conflicts between states have ended in arms.

The best example is the Cold War between the US and the USSR from the mid-1940s to the late 1980s in the last century, which ended unarmed.

Especially in conditions when regional powers or superpowers have nuclear weapons, their tendency is to refrain from engaging in direct armed conflict between them, which would lead to mutual destruction between the parties.

After Russia failed to carry out large-scale occupation and surrender of Ukraine, it concentrated its forces in eastern Ukraine to occupy the two self-proclaimed independent republics of Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk, with the logic of fact committed or fait accompli and tactics. of scorched earth, of bombing and mass destruction.

In the face of Ukraine's heroic resistance and the help it receives with modern weapons from the West, even this special operation, as the Russians call it, is likely to fail.

Temporary victory does not mean constantly occupying a country or part of its territory.

French diplomat par excellence Talleyrand said two centuries ago that you can do everything with bayonets, but you can not sit on them.

It is well known to say of war as a continuation of politics by means of violence to achieve political goals.

But the war is also a failure of political and diplomatic interaction between the parties.

Peace comes to the negotiating table, where the parties may not be completely satisfied with their conclusion, but gain peace in the first place.

Former US President JF Kennedy has said that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never be afraid to negotiate.

Negotiation is the heart of diplomacy.

It contains two main interrelated elements which are common interests and conflicting issues for resolution.

Fair negotiation is when the parties get what they deserve, not just what they want.

Even peace between Russia and Ukraine does not come with a "military" solution, which would go to the Russian style, in the variant that what I got with weapons or occupation belongs to me and what belongs to you, let's negotiate.

Several meetings of Russian-Ukrainian delegations so far have failed.

The prevailing opinion is that an immediate ceasefire and direct Putin-Zelensky high-level negotiations would end the war.

French President Macron has pointed out that peace cannot be built by humiliating Russia and Putin, nor by denying and excluding each other, and that peace comes to the negotiating table, where he seems ready to take on the role of mediator in Kiev - Moscow negotiations.

It would be good for the Russian and Ukrainian sides to board the "train" of negotiations without getting off at the stations, until a peace agreement is reached between them.