Former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stirred up social media when he appeared on the cover of Time magazine. In addition to the typical conflict of a polarized electoral conflict, some of the controversy arose from Lula’s statement that “Zelensky is as responsible for the war in Ukraine as Putin”.
Reading the entire interview gives the impression that Lula is trying to use this space to highlight his concern for an independent perspective on Brazil’s international relations. Throughout his speech, he reinforces his concern to make the country a hero and, between the lines, redeems the idea he has already championed in his governments: a foreign policy that can engage in dialogue with the global North and South while maintaining its autonomy. . . .
Not surprisingly, therefore, Lula tries not to directly attack Brazil’s traditional partners, such as the United States and Europe, while avoiding openly criticizing allies in the developing world, particularly the BRICS, including Russia.
However, while he believes he is keeping a safe distance from those involved in such a thorny issue, Lula’s speech is very problematic because it brings to mind a false symmetry about the conflict in Eastern Europe, something that cannot be assimilated uncritically. .
Lula is right to criticize the narrative built around Volodymyr Zelensky for the convenience of Western powers. Manichaeisms and archetypes are old acquaintances in constructing and shaping History. In many cases, they represent resources offered as a way to simplify reality and nurture weddings of opportunity. They don’t come close to the complexity and depth that themes really require.
Zelensky is not a statesman. A populist who came to power on the back of an anti-systemic wave. Nor is it a passive figure in the crisis with Russia, as it has had and continues to have agency power throughout the process of worsening bilateral dialogue.
Likewise, NATO’s reckless advances in this war, its failure to honor its commitments in the Minsk agreements, and Ukraine’s controversial decisions regarding its own military matters (e.g., the Azov Battalion, which is considered a neo-Nazi group by Moscow to seal its members).
But none of this justifies comparing Zelensky to Putin in the sense of suggesting equivalent responsibilities for the crisis we are currently pursuing. We all know that the attack on Ukraine was supported by premeditated false pretexts and a widely debated sense of urgency. It has since been nurtured for domestic consumption in the context of an autocratic and nationalist government based on religious foundations and identity appeals that foster resentment.
The war launched by Russia is a disproportionate response to what they perceive as a provocation from the West. The conflict does unprecedented damage to the structure of the international system, includes allegations of disrespect for all existing codes of conduct, undermines human dignity and is reprehensible under any circumstances.
Parts of the left in various parts of the world are reticent to criticize Russia harshly and understand that by doing so they can weaken an anti-imperialist pact of struggle based on the United States. focus. The problem is that this kind of choice ignores Russia’s own imperial ambitions and their impact on the world. It also puts these political groups in an awkward position when we bring up issues like democracy, human rights, and a set of liberal values that are consistently violated by Moscow.
Battles are complex and false equivalences only further jeopardize your understanding. Zelensky and Putin do not represent two sides of the same coin. A reviewer’s manager needs to be carefully calibrated. In this case, try a way out a la “The stick that goes to Chico goes to Francisco”, Lula forced the bar.
source: Noticias
