Peace and security require finding solutions through peaceful means
En las primeras horas del 24 de febrero de 2022, Rusia lanzó una operación militar contra Ucrania, desencadenando una crisis que obligó a gobiernos de todo el mundo —incluido Perú, a miles de kilómetros del conflicto— a pronunciarse sobre los límites del orden internacional. La Cancillería peruana rechazó el uso de la fuerza y apeló a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, recordando que la arquitectura de paz construida tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial descansa sobre el principio de que ninguna nación puede imponer su voluntad por las armas. Es un momento en que la distancia geográfica no exime a ningún Estado de tomar posición ante lo que considera una violación del derecho internacional.
- Putin anunció una operación militar contra Ucrania antes del amanecer del 24 de febrero, y en cuestión de horas estallaron combates en las zonas fronterizas con Rusia y Bielorrusia.
- El presidente ruso advirtió que cualquier intervención externa tendría consecuencias 'nunca antes vistas en la historia', elevando la tensión a escala global.
- El embajador ucraniano ante la ONU convocó de urgencia al Consejo de Seguridad, pero Rusia —con poder de veto— bloqueaba de antemano cualquier resolución vinculante.
- Perú, pese a su lejanía del conflicto, emitió una declaración formal rechazando el uso de la fuerza y exigiendo el cese inmediato de hostilidades.
- La respuesta diplomática internacional se intensifica, pero las llamadas al alto al fuego llegan cuando las operaciones militares ya están en marcha, evidenciando los límites del peso moral frente a los hechos consumados.
El jueves 24 de febrero, horas después de que Vladimir Putin anunciara en cadena televisiva una operación militar contra Ucrania —justificándola como una medida para proteger a los separatistas del este del país—, la Cancillería peruana emitió un comunicado formal de rechazo. El gobierno peruano expresó profunda preocupación por la escalada en las fronteras ucranianas con Rusia y Bielorrusia, y exigió que todas las partes respetaran un cese al fuego inmediato, reafirmando su compromiso con la Carta de la ONU y el derecho internacional como únicos marcos legítimos para resolver conflictos.
En Nueva York, el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU sesionó de emergencia casi en paralelo al discurso de Putin. El embajador ucraniano Sergiy Kyslytsya suplicó al organismo que detuviera la guerra, pero la realidad estructural era implacable: Rusia ocupa un asiento permanente con poder de veto, lo que hacía inviable cualquier resolución vinculante. Mientras tanto, Putin advirtió a potenciales interventores externos que enfrentarían consecuencias sin precedentes históricos.
La declaración peruana, aunque geográficamente distante del teatro de operaciones, reflejó el dilema que enfrentaron decenas de capitales ese día: las palabras y los principios llegaban tarde, cuando las fuerzas rusas ya operaban en múltiples puntos del este de Ucrania. El conflicto había cruzado el umbral de la crisis política hacia la confrontación militar abierta, poniendo en evidencia cuánto puede —y cuánto no puede— el orden internacional cuando una potencia decide actuar por la fuerza.
Peru's Foreign Ministry broke its silence on the Russia-Ukraine conflict on Thursday, February 24th, issuing a formal statement that rejected military force and demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities. The statement came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a military operation against Ukraine in a televised address delivered just before 3 a.m. GMT, framing the action as necessary to protect separatists in the country's eastern regions.
The Peruvian government, speaking through its official channels, expressed deep concern about the rapid escalation unfolding along Ukraine's borders with Russia and Belarus. Officials emphasized that Peru categorically rejected the use of force and called for all parties to respect a ceasefire. The statement reflected a broader diplomatic principle: that international peace and security depend on resolving conflicts through peaceful means, grounded in the United Nations Charter and international law.
Putin's announcement marked a dramatic shift from weeks of military posturing. In his televised address, the Russian president called on Ukrainian military forces to lay down their weapons and justified the operation as a defensive measure. Within hours of his declaration, reports emerged of artillery fire and armed clashes erupting along the border zones. The speed of the escalation caught the attention of governments worldwide, including Peru, which felt compelled to issue its own response despite being geographically distant from the conflict.
At the United Nations Security Council, an emergency meeting convened almost simultaneously with Putin's announcement. Ukraine's ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, made an urgent appeal to the council, imploring the body to stop the war. He framed the responsibility squarely on international institutions to intervene and halt the military operations already underway.
Putin, meanwhile, issued a stark warning to any nation considering external involvement. Speaking directly to potential interveners, he declared that Russia would respond immediately to any interference, and that such intervention would result in consequences "never experienced in history." The threat was unmistakable: the Russian leader was signaling that he would not tolerate third-party involvement in what he characterized as a regional operation.
Peru's statement represented the kind of measured diplomatic response emerging from capitals across the globe as the conflict shifted from a political crisis to an active military confrontation. The Peruvian Foreign Ministry's invocation of international law and the UN Charter reflected a consensus among many nations that military solutions violated the post-World War II order. Yet the statement also underscored the limits of diplomatic pressure in the face of a fait accompli—by the time Peru and other nations issued their calls for ceasefire, Russian forces were already engaged in operations across multiple points in eastern Ukraine.
The hours following Putin's announcement revealed the fragility of the international system when confronted with a major power willing to use military force. Ukraine's ambassador pleaded for the Security Council to act, but Russia's permanent seat on that same council gave it veto power over any binding resolution. Peru's call for peaceful resolution, echoed by dozens of other nations, carried moral weight but no enforcement mechanism. The conflict had entered a new phase, one where diplomatic statements and international law would compete with the immediate reality of military operations on the ground.
Citas Notables
Peru reaffirms its conviction that international peace and security require finding solutions to conflicts through peaceful means, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law.— Peru's Foreign Ministry
Whoever attempts to interfere with us, and especially to create threats to our country and people, must know that Russia's response will be immediate.— Vladimir Putin
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Peru feel the need to issue a statement at all? They're thousands of miles away from this conflict.
Because when a major power violates the international order, silence becomes complicity. Peru, like most nations, had signed on to the UN Charter. Not speaking would have meant accepting that military force was acceptable as a tool of statecraft.
But did Peru's statement actually change anything on the ground in Ukraine?
No. By the time the statement was issued, Russian forces were already moving. The real audience for Peru's words wasn't Moscow—it was the historical record and Peru's own standing in the international community.
So it's performative?
Not entirely. These statements create a collective record. When dozens of nations reject military force, it matters for future accountability, even if it doesn't stop tanks in the moment.
What about Putin's warning to other countries? Was he specifically worried about Peru intervening?
No. He was warning the United States and NATO. Peru had no military capacity to intervene. But the warning was meant for anyone listening—a signal that escalation would be met with escalation.
Did Peru's statement align with what Ukraine was asking for at the UN?
Exactly. Both were calling for the same thing: a ceasefire and peaceful resolution. But Ukraine was begging the Security Council to enforce it, while Peru was simply stating a principle. One had hope; the other was making a record.