What does the future hold in store for the volatile Russian Federation, and what implications will it have for the rest of the civilized world? I have been reflecting on this topic since I took part in the second Forum of Free Peoples of Russia on July 22-24 in Prague. The event brought together delegates from 20 nations that had experienced enslavement by the Russian Empire. The first forum was held in Warsaw on May 8.
The agenda was dominated by the need to decolonize and de-imperialize the Russian Federation – if the Western world really wants a safe future without wars.
Speaking at the Prague forum, I emphasized that Russia would only become safe for the rest of the world if it were transformed in terms of governance and reformatted in terms of territorial make up.
The present-day Russian Federation is too centralized, too Moscow-centric, too large geographically, and imperial historically.
Therefore, it is wrong to believe that if it remains as it is, even weakened by a future military defeat from Ukraine and Western sanctions, it will not reemerge with new imperial and revanchist ambitions.
Russia’s historical background proves that its imperialistic, rapacious nature has invariably resurged with new territorial claims threatening new wars. Since the reign of Ivan III, the periods of so-called “democratization” which the Russians called “smuta” (unrest, embroilment, chaos), have always been very short, ending in surges of czarist despotism and violence.
Quite exemplary in this regard is the period of Gorbachev’s perestroika followed by Yeltsin’s democratization: it ended up in the Chechen war.
That is why it is very wrong to expect that after Putin is succeeded by a more pacific, “good czar” and the propaganda machine is turned off, that the Russian public will come to its senses and abandon imperial traditions, and the threat of a new war will be eliminated.
In fact, having invaded Ukraine in February, Russia signed its own death warrant. This war is certain to result in the fall and disintegration of Russia as an empire. An organized and predictable geopolitical entity is better than an uncontrollable one.
Russia’s imperial project and Ukraine’s democratic project are mutually exclusive: the victory of either means the inevitable death of the other. Ukraine’s victory on the battlefield will unquestionably lead to the death of the Russian Empire. Many Western politicians ought to realize and accept this inevitability instead of looking for suicidal ways to let the bloody monster live – in whatever shape or name.
Ukraine has one more mission in this war: to correct the historical mistake made by a part of the Ukrainian religious and Cossack leadership at the dawn of the 18th century, which contributed decisively to the transformation of Muscovy into Peter the Great’s Russian Empire.
Russia’s future transformation should proceed from the generally accepted principle of democratic self-determination of peoples and communities inhabiting this or that territory. Several sovereign national states should emerge from the territory occupied by the Russian Federation. In other words, all national entities that currently make up the Russian Federation should independently choose their future as much as they are willing and able to. Of course, all decisions and procedures should be legitimate and internationally supported and assisted, and then the new states should be duly recognized.
How many states will emerge from the wreckage of the Russian Federation? What will happen to the present-day oblasts, autonomies and territories? Will they create a real federative or confederative state, or will some of them prefer to be independent states?
These questions are rather complex, and a deep insight into them certainly takes time. However, I believe that it is better to consider them before Ukraine defeats Russia than to have to deal with a fait accompli.
In any event, the defeats suffered by the Russian army on Ukrainian territory will ultimately lead to the Russian regime’s military-political capitulation – a sort of “capitulation without occupation”.
The outcome of this war will be formalized by the winners – the coalition of Ukraine and the Western states supporting it that will ink a peace deal with a provisional administration, which will replace the Putin-FSB regime. The document will envision a transformation of Russia’s system of government and territorial composition, and that will be the grand finale in Russia’s historical existence as an empire.
Taras Stetskiv, a Ukrainian politician and public activist, was born on June 7, 1967, in Lviv. Engaged in political activities since the late 1980s, he co-founded the Lev Society and the Lviv branch of the Narodniy Rukh (Popular Movement). He was elected to parliament five times. In 1992-1993, he was a political adviser to the Prime Minister of Ukraine, in 2006-2008 an adviser to the President of Ukraine. He was one of the leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution. In 2005, he headed the National Television Company of Ukraine. In 2016, he was elected to the supervisory board of the National Forum for Transformation of Ukraine civil initiative.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and not necessarily those of the Kyiv Post.
