There was great jubilance across the country once comedian-turned-politician Volodymyr Zelensky was elected to the Ukrainian presidency in April 2019. As he took office, Ukraine had been engaged in a war with Russia for over five years, decimating the country’s economy and killing tens of thousands of people. The newly-elected president wanted to end this conflict. Zelensky’s victory was seen as a rejection of the country’s traditional elite for failing to end the Donbas war, revive the economy, or tackle widespread corruption. Zelensky has dedicated much of his presidency on ending the war with Russia, but at what cost? His methods in negotiation risks endangering Ukraine’s future permanently.
On election night, Zelensky said he would reboot talks with Russia to end the Donbas war. Zelensky’s greatest strengths were the near-universal name recognition that came from his acting career, including his most-recent portrayal of the president of Ukraine on the television show called Servant of The People—a name he later gave to his political party.
Shortly after Russia illegally annexed Crimea in March 2014, they invaded the Donbas region of Ukraine, which encompasses the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The so-called “separatists” were nothing more than Russia-controlled proxy states, with Moscow funding ammunition, heavy weapons, and regular units of the Russian army. Six years of the “hot war” have claimed over 13,000 lives, and caused some two million people to flee their homes, forced to live as internally displaced persons within their own country.
Russia has spent the last years paying lip service to peace agreements reached in Minsk first in September 2014 and then in February 2015 — the latter with the direct participation of Germany and France. On both occasions, the articles of agreement were unsatisfactory for Ukraine, nor were any implemented. But, with Zelensky’s election in 2019, there was an opportunity to try his hand to prove himself a true statesman. So far, it has not gone well for him.
Zelensky is now facing a grim reality with reforms stalling, the COVID-19 pandemic tearing into the economy, and desperation to find peace in eastern Ukraine. Dramatic change in Ukraine is difficult, yet public expectations are high. Zelensky should pivot away on his promise to end the war by acquiescing to Russia and its separatist allies as soon as possible. The reality is that Russia will continue terrorizing Ukraine with or without this war regardless of any compromises, and compromising for short-terms gains should not be an option. Zelensky should not compromise the future generations of Ukrainians or endanger their freedom and should always keep Ukraine’s long-term interests at the forefront of Ukraine’s negotiations.
A statesman is someone who does everything for the common good of the people they represent. President Abraham Lincoln guided foreign policy at a time of great peril, during the Civil War, when the United States was vulnerable to foreign intervention. Historians have long shown Lincoln to have been a great statesperson who worked tirelessly to build his country into something greater than it was. The same cannot be said for Zelensky as he faces one of the most challenging eras in Ukraine, and he is failing to rise to the occasion.
Recently, Zelensky’s administration agreed to begin talks with representatives of Russia’s puppet states in Luhansk and Donetsk, making a complete 180-turn from the previous six years when Ukraine refused to negotiate directly with the Kremlin-appointed authorities of the two regions. This has sparked grave concern for millions of Ukrainians and risks jeopardizing Ukraine’s future—and frees Russia to continue terrorizing Ukraine. The key issue is that Russia will reportedly participate in the process as an international observer rather than as a party to the conflict. Ukraine for the past six years has refused to engage with the puppet republics in Luhansk and Donetsk and only has engaged with Russia directly in order to avoid any contacts that might be seen as legitimizing Moscow’s proxy forces in Donbas or diminishing Russian responsibility for the conflict as the aggressor state. If Ukraine now changes its position, it will undo the diplomatic progress of the past six years and create a pretext for the weakening of international sanctions against Russia. This would free up precious resources and allow the Kremlin to launch more hybrid attacks against Ukraine.
Zelensky should think about Ukraine’s future, and what implications his decisions will have for future generations of Ukraine. He should renounce any further proposals by Russia to negotiate directly with its puppet forces in Ukraine. If the president allows Ukraine’s policy to switch and entertain negotiations with the puppets, the move will undoubtedly have a significant negative impact on Ukraine’s position in the international arena. At present, several cases are underway at the United Nations International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, in order to hold Russia accountable for its actions and crimes in Ukraine. By providing the Kremlin with legal grounds to distance itself from the war, as well as a range of other crimes committed in eastern Ukraine, Zelensky risks destroying six years of international efforts to bring Russia to justice, while also limiting Ukraine’s ability to hold Russia accountable.
There is a precedent to understand exactly what Russia is trying to do with Ukraine. The 2003 Kozak Memorandum (officially, Russian Draft Memorandum on the Basic Principles of the State Structure of a United State in Moldova) provides insights into what Russia hopes for Ukraine. The memorandum provided the constitutional framework for federalizing Moldova to help reintegrate the breakaway region of Transnistria into Moldova as Russia attempted to “reunify” Moldova on Russia’s own terms and conditions. However, the memorandum was designed as a Trojan horse reintegration. In the end, the Moldovan government rejected the memorandum, because it would have given regional authorities in Transnistria major powers. This would allow Russia to veto national-level decisions, such as foreign policy and Moldova’s relationship with the European Union through its proxy in Transnistria. This would have significantly eroded Moldova’s independence and permanently situated it within Russia’s sphere of influence. Even to this day, Russia keeps a sizable force in eastern Moldova that Russia calls “peacekeepers.”
Forcing opponents to speak directly with Russian proxies is a trademark Kremlin ploy during conflict negotiations as seen with Moldova and even Georgia. By creating an Advisory Council featuring both Ukrainian and separatist members, Putin will move closer to achieving his goal in Ukraine of a Trojan horse reintegration. The mere existence of such a council will help Russia wipe the slate clean, including — among a long list of other crimes — its guilt for the downing of flight MH17 in July 2014 and ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians in Crimea. The downing is, in fact, the subject of court proceedings currently underway in the Netherlands. Zelensky’s decision may blur Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and allow the court’s to side with the aggressor. It could also undermine sympathy for Ukraine, undermine the country’s credibility, and allow Russia to never pay for its crimes in Ukraine.
This year will be crucial for Zelensky’s presidency. He has the opportunity to steer Ukraine on a hard course towards NATO and the EU and give Russia no space to absolve itself of responsibility for the war in Ukraine. The hard maneuver to Europe and defiance of Russia will allow Ukraine to continue European integration and ensure that Russia does not continue to bind Ukraine’s future. However, if he continues to focus on quick wins to fulfill his campaign promises, he will undermine any sort of future that Ukraine has with Europe meaning that Ukraine no longer has a pathway to prosperity and will continue to rot under Russia’s sphere of influence. This path will cement him as a politician rather than a statesman. Unfortunately, creating an advisory body featuring Ukrainian officials together with Putin’s proxies will not bring peace in eastern Ukraine. Nor will it succeed in improving Zelensky’s approval ratings. Instead, it may very well divide Ukrainian society, while drastically weakening the country’s international position.
David Kirichenko is a Ukrainian-American civic activist and an editor at Euromaidan Press, an online English language newspaper in Ukraine. He is also a former Mosaic Taiwan fellow and an alumnus of the Yenching Global Symposium initiative at Peking University. David frequently publishes articles and his work can be read at the Pacific Forum, Taipei Times, Euronews among others.
