The conflict in eastern Ukraine is the product of years of corruption and neglect on the part of Ukraine’s political leadership, that much is clear; it is also the product of years of shortsightedness and lack of respect for Russia on the part of the West. These things cannot be changed. They must be accepted as part of the toxic chemistry that went into the making of the tensions and psychology which produced the insurgency.
Russia’s president should not be mocked when he rattles his nuclear saber, but taken seriously. Is it not foolish, when confronting a cornered bear, to continue to poke it after it roars and takes a few swipes? It is wiser to back off and give space. “But he is like Hitler!” they clamor. “He must be stopped.” Hitler didn’t have 8,000 nuclear warheads aimed at cities in Western Europe and North America.
As political scientist John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has written, going down the road of arming Ukraine “would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.”
Put aside for a moment Vladimir Putin’s reputation. His people bore the brunt of the fighting in World War II, long before D-Day, and at least 20 million Russians died on the Eastern Front. This went a long way toward helping the Allies win the war. Russia is a nation worthy of respect. To de-escalate tensions now, it is essential that Russia be given space. NATO’s strategy and policy of crowding Russia is unwise, and has been since the Soviet Union’s collapse. It is a game which pleases the military-industrial complex but imperils peace. This must change, and a good starting point is Ukraine.
The crisis in Ukraine is actually an opportunity in disguise, a chance for Ukraine to really think through its options, and not just default to a “pro-European Union” position because it’s the easiest thing to do. The EuroMaidan activists fought for rule of law, honest government and competent leadership, which can be obtained without joining the bureaucratic nightmare which is the European Union.
In fact Ukraine’s best path for peace, internal reform, and a full flowering of its culture and creativity, is that of non-alignment. That is to say, the proper role for Ukraine, based on its location, history and culture, is that of a buffer state between Russia and Western Europe. This is not to abandon Ukraine’s potential; rather, it would lay the foundation of a great undertaking, one that would see the rise of Ukrainian ingenuity and the avoidance of many pitfalls associated with strict allegiance to East or West. Ukraine should take the road less traveled by.
This assertion is based on three premises. The first is that Ukraine’s geo-strategic location, combined with its history, means that non-alignment would best serve its pursuit of peace and the growth of a uniquely Ukrainian state, economy and culture. Ukraine shares its past with both Russia and Europe, it is a product of both, and this is a strength. Ukrainian nationalism and pride will flower in a role of non-alignment, taking nourishment from both soils and others, to produce a plant of its own creation.
The EU has many problems, as does Russia. Does Ukraine really want to tie itself in lock-step with either?
Doing so creates an instant enemy – the other. Non-alignment would gain the respect of both, and open the door to both, and still leave Ukrainians the independence to decline overtures from either, with the fully plausible reason that it is charting its own course and is a threat to neither. Ukraine has been fighting for its sovereignty in the east, and many of its young men and women have died; does it really wish to forsake its sovereignty by joining the EU? Because that is exactly what would happen.
There are many in the EU today – in Hungary and Great Britain, for instance – who rue the day they joined the common market, the single currency (though England stood clear), and its oppressive rules. Hungarian villagers are not even free anymore to raise their own pigs. Greece has suffered terribly under the oppressive austerity terms of the Troika, and remember that Ukraine is also bankrupt and would win no sympathy from the technocrats. Similarly the poor in rural Russia, who struggle to put food on the table and puzzle over the opulence of the oligarchs in Moscow, would welcome the chance to throw off the yoke of tsarist ideology and live in a freer state where opportunity is not already choked off for themselves and their children. Ukraine indeed has a golden opportunity, if it will only realize it.
The second premise is that non-alignment is also best suited to Ukraine’s political culture – its values, ideas and practices. Ukraine is torn between East and West. Like Turkey, it is neither East nor West. This myth of a united Ukraine is false. Its people in fact are divided and fractured. Crimea is a microcosm, where half the people favor Ukraine and half Russia. In the Donbas more than a million people have fled the conflict zone, with hundreds of thousands going both to Russia and to other parts of Ukraine such as Lviv, which is more pro-Europe. So joining the EU would alienate many and exacerbate the schisms, whereas an independent course – like that of Austria in the Cold War – would challenge people to pull together, find common ground together, and create new goals and hope together.
The third premise concerns the war in the east. The choice of non-alignment is a game changer — the best and quickest way to put the country on the road to peace and reconstruction. It would give Russia a face-saving way to back out of the Donbas. This is the critical point now – how to end the war on a reasonable, realistic basis which lays some hope for peace. Ukraine can take the crucial first step and say, “OK – no EU. We’ll be non-aligned.” All of a sudden Russia’s motive to mess with the rest of Ukraine largely vanishes.
The idea that we can increase the pain on Russia by blocking it from the SWIFT banking network has some merit, but it’s not the way to end the war. Russia is already drafting a bill to create a new system for domestic bank transfers, according to the Itar-Tass news agency. And Russia would certainly take equally tough retaliatory actions. “There’s no doubt that in the short term restricting Russian usage of SWIFT would be extremely disruptive to Russian financial and commercial activities,” said Richard Reid, a research fellow for finance and regulation at the University of Dundee in Scotland. “However, it may carry a longer-term downside, namely the likelihood that large chunks of Russian international payments flows would move to much less well monitored and measured financial channels and thus be beyond sanctions at any future point.”
Sometimes the best way forward is to take a step back. Ukraine could say to Russia, “You’ve got a point. We’ve been blinded by mismanagement here. We don’t need to threaten you by joining the EU and NATO; in fact we’d be better off on our own. That means independence from you, too, however. So stop worrying about the CIA running Kyiv. But as a quid pro quo, we expect peace in the east.”
Let us shed the hubris of thinking the West should be in Ukraine, in Russia’s sphere of influence, and has a right to intervene in this war. Henry Kissinger has expressed his worries about the West clashing directly with Russia. He knows the U.S. has no more business in the Donbas than Russia does in Ottawa. Indeed America’s Monroe Doctrine would not tolerate foreign meddling in Canada or Mexico (or Cuba, as during the Missile Crisis in October 1962), so to expect Russia to accept Western military action in Ukraine is an unrealistic double standard.
Ukraine has a chance to chart its own course, beginning with a public declaration of non-alignment, while inviting the friendship and assistance of states and peoples the world over. There will be costs. Ukraine will need a more effective military. Currently a unitary state, it should seriously look at becoming a federal one with its regions, like the Donbas, empowered with specific areas of authority. It will lose some opportunities for trade, but gain others. The advantages of an independent Ukraine will prevail.
In the past, Ukrainians have demonstrated great courage and self-reliance through many oppressive and catastrophic decades. Ukrainians are resilient and resourceful. Now is the time to remember and embrace these values, not abandon them.
Brad Bird is a Canadian journalist who has reported on wars from Kosovo, Turkey, Western Sahara, Georgia and Ukraine.
