Ukraine, also a question of values

On February 24, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

He had publicly assured that he had no intention of doing so, but later it became known that on January 18 he had already decided to invade.

Macron's efforts to dialogue and reach agreements could not have been successful, and yet it must be stated that resorting to deliberation and dialogue as far as possible is the task of the man who, as Max Weber would say, has a political vocation, while systematic lying is the resource of the tyrant accustomed to manipulating everything for his own benefit, beginning with the word, with which he destroys any possibility of generating trust and a fair coexistence.

Lenin said that trust is good, but control is better, and yet, without basic trust, a humane world is impossible.

Naturally, after the outrage, speculations proliferated about Putin's motives for destroying a country that, with all its complexities, lived in peace, and the desire to recover the map of the former Soviet Union, prevent the enlargement of the European Union and stop the expansion of NATO, avenge past humiliations, or prove that you are a

, a chief or caudillo, as Juan Francisco Fuentes said of Putin in the pages of this newspaper some time ago.

But it should be remembered that these, whatever they may be, are subjective reasons, not reasons.

The motives allow us to understand to a certain extent the actions of individuals, but they do not justify them, because to justify them, reasons are needed, arguments about which it is possible to discuss and that can be accepted or rejected.

None of the motives mentioned is even the slightest reason to destroy a peaceful country, but what makes them more dangerous is that they are those of an autocrat with considerable power.

The word

is somewhat cryptic, but the RAE

sets out its meaning very clearly: a form of government in which the will of a single person is the supreme law.

Unfortunately, Putin's brutal aggression is further proof that one of the great challenges of our century is the empowerment of autocracies and the weakening of democracies, as if we had learned nothing from the suffering caused by those of the last century, of that “yesterday's world” that Stefan Zweig spoke of.

More information

News of the war in Ukraine, live

Faced with the massacre, now inevitable, the first question is what to do and there is no other way but to support the Ukrainian people to the hilt with all available means, from sanctions against Russia, weapons and, of course, welcoming the refugees.

But also learn from some good news: the courage of the Ukrainian people, whatever the end of the conflict, has shown that courageous resistance to tyrants is fruitful, and, in a very similar vein, the protests that have arisen in the Russian people with that "not in my name" of those who refuse to identify with the caudillo.

That is the true heritage of the tradition of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy Grossman.

But there is news that especially concerns the European Union: it is said that the European Geopolitical Union has been born in that international order that is now led by the United States and China, with Russia in the background.

The European Union has become aware of its responsibility as a protagonist in the world order and, therefore, it must strengthen internal unity and external relations, assume a common foreign policy, seek strategic autonomy so as not to depend on others for vital products, such as toilets or energy sources —zero gas from Russia—, or reduce the merciless bureaucracy.

But what gives meaning to these mechanisms are the ethical values ​​that the European Union has opted for since its creation: the defense of a vigorous democracy, both liberal and social, that is committed to the rights of specific people, to their inalienable freedom, and never by suffocating communities that kill life, but is also aware that freedom is not achieved alone, but in solidarity with other people, who are equal in dignity and citizens of a common world.

Freedom, solidarity and equality are those inalienable values ​​that we share with other democratic countries, and especially with those of Latin America.

Faced with Chinese capitalist communism, which is obviously autocratic, and faced with American neoliberalism, liberal socialism or social liberalism is the best option.

However, it is not about reproducing a struggle of civilizations that pits the values ​​of the West against those of the East, because such a thing does not exist.

There is a confrontation between the values ​​of democracies and autocracies, whatever their geographical location.

Japan, South Korea or Taiwan are among the first, Russia, China, Venezuela or Nicaragua, among the autocracies.

Building a better future requires promoting democratic values, with words, but above all with deeds, showing that we believe in them because they offer possibilities for a fuller life than autocratic values.

And it is that in the configuration of the political, legal, economic and social institutions of any society some ethical values ​​are always embodied and it is decisive that they are one or the other.

Democracies must have strong institutions,

One of those European values ​​is hospitality, which fortunately has been activated in the face of the exodus of Ukrainian refugees with an unprecedented measure by the European Union to support the transfer and reception in countries of the Union of those who are forced to leave Ukraine because of the war.

It is a splendid measure of solidarity, to which solidarity organizations, volunteers and host families have joined.

According to forecasts, the number of refugees could reach four million, a figure that the different countries of the Union are preparing to assume.

There is no doubt that solidarity unites.

However, some voices have been raised accusing the European Union of treating refugees and immigrants from North Africa very differently.

They have also been fleeing war and misery for decades, but they die every day and when they arrive in our countries, integration is extremely complex.

In my opinion, the criticisms are right, but only in part, because it is not a matter of diminishing the strength of an extremely valuable and fruitful experience of solidarity, which is saving lives and avoiding suffering, but rather of extending it.

And above all, to put on the table that the problem of asylum and refuge is a local and global challenge at least as urgent as the pandemic or climate change, even if it is less famous.

The Spanish Commission for Refugee Aid (CEAR) is well aware of this, as it knows of an infinity of migrations, such as that of the more than six million Venezuelans who have recently left their country.

Shouldn't the immense number of national and international organizations that neither solve the problems in the countries of origin nor enable the integration of the displaced in the countries of arrival have to deal with it?

Are we not demonstrating with this forgetfulness of the most vulnerable that in the West and in the East we are at a minimum of humanity?

Adela Cortina

is Emeritus Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at the University of Valencia, member of the Royal Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, director of the ÉTNOR Foundation and author of

(Paidós).

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber