It's hard to accept, but that's the way it is, if we look at the narratives of its protagonists.
In a conventional war there are countries that are recognized as contenders, there are winners and losers.
In
an existential war,
what is at stake is the very existence of those who fight and of what they fight for,
their reason for being in the world.
Vladimir Putin registers the conflict in this geopolitical framework and historical background, when he says that it is
"a battle for the survival of Russia
", he denies the entity of Ukraine as a sovereign country and of Ukrainians as a people, and he proposes to redesign the Eurasian map under the molds of what was the Soviet Union, or further back, the tsarist empire.
Volodimir Zelensky also contributes his counter-narrative when he proposes
to change the name of Russia to "Muscovy" and "Russian Federation" to "Moscow Federation".
The petition endorsed by the Ukrainian president explains that “this name was used in European and some Asian languages.
On many historical maps from the 16th to the 19th centuries, which were made in Europe before and after the renaming of the Moscow kingdom to the All-Russian Empire.
He also points out that
"Russia has existed for only 301 years
, since October 22, 1721, when Tsar Peter I of Moscow proclaimed the Muscovite kingdom 'Russian Empire'."
Zelensky indicated that "the issue raised in the petition requires a thorough examination, both in terms of the historical and cultural context and taking into account the possible international legal consequences."
We do not know if Zelenski's proposal challenges Putin's Russia because of its absurdity or is part of his true convictions.
Russia is the aggressor power and Ukraine the attacked country.
This is how the United Nations has established it.
And the International Criminal Court -not NATO- has called for the capture of the Russian president, for crimes against humanity.
But from there, the context data makes the plot more complex.
kyiv versus Moscow?
West vs.
East?
democracies vs.
autocracies?
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict places us
at the core of the geopolitics of the 21st century
, of multi-secular confluences, changing political geographies and cognitive maps that fail to grasp the complexity of the emerging scenarios;
our ways of observing the world, grouping and distinguishing “us” and “them”
, of locating them in territorial spaces and delimiting their borders.
A story -or several historical narratives- that take on new forms, or retake old paths that were believed to have been overcome, with unusual force.
A return to a century ago, with the decline of the imperial powers and the emergence of new powers.
Bursts that shake the building of the interstate system, international peace and security
, post-war creations that are the only thing that continues to preserve us from a third world war.
Sometimes they seem to recreate the scenarios between the wars of the 20th century.
At times, the roars of history come from further back and are felt more strongly.