My op-ed in the Wall Street Journal has been actively discussed, and I would like to react. I do not dismiss my messages, I want only to explain them. Also because in the debate, things that I have not said are being arrogated to me
The WSJ editorial staff was focused on the things that interest the American readers, and cut the original text of my article by more than half. More than that, my title was (as it translates) “New strategy for Ukraine in the changing world: contribution for the sake of achieving peace and defending our freedom.” But already when it was published, I saw that the WSJ had changed the title to “Ukraine Must Make Painful Compromises for Peace With Russia.” This is inaccurate, because most compromises that I suggest refer to our counterparts in the West.
This is why I will be referring to what has not become part of the published version. And I will go further, taking into account the debate that has deployed. And if labels matter to some so much, this text will be “Untitled”. Let us discuss the content.
Adequacy
The global strategic situation is changing dramatically.
The European Union is experiencing profound problems. There is a change of elites under way in the West. The West itself is exposed to threats for the first time in a long period, and therefore it is reconsidering its priorities. And most importantly for us, it is the international group of counterparts who have been helping us to hold out that is changing.
We do not know how it will be, but it will not be as it used to be, for sure. And we have to get prepared to it already now.
The “Ukrainian issue” may well become an element to a big geopolitical deal, alongside with the Syrian conflict, Russia-US relations, fight against terrorism, refugees problem, future of the European Union and transatlantic partnership, North Korea etc.
The biggest mistake would be to believe that we have guarantees for a fortunate outcome. That we can allow ourselves all-or-nothing thinking and uncompromising stand regarding all issues. For sure, we can go on behaving vis-à-vis the West as if nothing has changed. But then, we will cease to be taken for serious. And as the Ukrainian crisis in the heart of Europe needs yet to be settled, there will be will to deal on it. But bypassing us this time.
More and more often, those win in the West who promise solving local issues instead of global conflicts. However, any Western politicians have their limits values-wise. They are not interested in sanctions, they need trade and economic cooperation with Russia, interaction with it on Syria and in fighting the ISIS. But it is still unacceptable for them to be blamed for connivance with the war in Europe or violations of the international law.
And they need fast results that the voters expect from them.
To help the leaders of the West achieve these is within our powers. In exchange of their help in achieving our goals.
By acting in a flexible way, we will have the capacity to turn the change of the Western elites to our benefit.
European Union
Those who blame me for renouncing the idea of Ukraine’s EU membership have either read the text inattentively, or they simply lie. The WSJ article reads clearly, “ Ukraine should consider temporarily eliminating EU membership from our stated goals for the near future”.
Would I wish to see Ukraine part of the EU today? Definitely, yes!
I have been promoting the idea of the European Ukraine for a long time, and I believe in it. As far back as in 2004, I founded YES, the European Yalta Strategy. Its goal was initially making Ukraine and the EU closer. In 2006, we developed the first ever step-by-step program for Ukraine to gain the EU membership, “Agenda-2020.”
For objective and subjective reasons, a breakthrough did not happen then. Much has changed since. Ukrainian citizens have gained association with the European Union at the price of their own blood. They have made the definite European choice. But at the same time, do we like it or not, the EU has revealed itself in a systemic crisis. And we will have to adapt to it. While keeping the European vector as the strategic one, we need to remain pragmatic and reserved in our relations with counterparts.
Today, there is a major part of the member states that not only do not want to see Ukraine as part of the EU, but are not even prepared to draw such a prospect for us for future. By insisting on the membership prospect now, we are only weakening the positions of our friends in the European Union. And we contribute to draw a new split line inside it.
Now, we have to build our own strong country, in line with the European principles and fully meeting the European standards.
Ukrainians have already got everything needed at this stage: there is the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, and it provides for clear standards. To meet these implies a huge work. We need to focus all of our efforts on it.
We need to do that work, explaining in parallel to our counterparts what we are doing. Then, Europe’s perception of Ukraine will start changing to the better. And then, the membership prospect question may be posed.
Building Ukraine following the European standards today is diametrically opposing the Russian dreams about us as a failed state.
No compromise with Russia in this respect.
While not insisting on the membership now, by “facilitating life” for the European Union and compromising with it, we should press for concrete things from the EU in exchange:
- a more substantial financial assistance and a serious support for Ukraine’s economy;
- more decisive steps for rapprochement between Ukraine and the European Union (for instance, in such a case, we would have been enjoying the “visa free regime” for quite some time, and the Association Agreement ratification would have been happening in a substantially simpler and faster way etc);
- a more pro-Ukrainian attitude from the EU in all possible formats of debate on the peaceful settlement;
– an absolute commitment in the issue of prolonging sanctions against Russia if there is no progress in the peaceful process.
NATO
Defense capacity and security guarantees are fundamental and existential issues for Ukraine today. It is definitely on these that the major efforts of the country should be focused, and not on NATO talks.
Would I wish that Ukraine be a NATO member already today? Yes. I would.
However, the likelihood of our joining the NATO is tending to zero at this stage. To most alliance members, “Ukraine in the NATO” means an increasing likelihood of an armed conflict with Russia with grave chances of turning into World War 3. Nobody at all is prepared for such a scenario in the West.
The right goal for us, is not to force a closed door, but to radically strengthen our defense capacity by using all abilities of our military industrial complex and the willingness of the Ukrainian people to defend their Motherland. And make our best to get guarantees for security from the West as an alternative to the NATO membership.
There are so many who are interested in Ukraine’s neutrality for the near- and midterm. In this respect, it is rather our Western counterparts than us who should seek compromise. And if they want stability and peace, they will seek it.
In addition to giving up our claim for the membership, which is of an extreme importance to the West, we have another trump: the “Budapest precedent “. The West that failed to meet its legal commitments before us and that did not even provide us with a single gun in exchange of a nuclear bomb, remains in a debt to us, at least, moral. We should claim a substantial financial and technical assistance from the West, to strengthen our defense capacity and to get direct guarantees for security.
What kind of guarantees these will be, nobody can say so far. There have been no precedents in the world so far. But ultimate expert and intellectual efforts should be focused now to answer the main question: what international guarantees do we need. And then, all abilities should be concentrated to gain such guarantees.
All diplomatic and political resources should be deployed to this end. Lobbying capacities abroad also should be focused on the security of the country, instead of black campaigns.
In February this year, at the Munich Security Conference, the first ever special Ukrainian event in its history will be held, the one that we are organizing. Featuring leading global experts, it will be addressing specifically the questions of what might be international guarantees for our country.
To conclude, our giving up seeking the NATO membership for the near and midterm is possible only in exchange of the security guaranteed by the West, as well as a substantial military, technical and financial assistance contributing to strengthen our defense capacity. Our western counterparts should be seeking compromises with Ukraine here.
Crimea
This part of my op-ed has provoked the most emotional feedback. I have even been accused of being prepared to give up Crimea and to renounce the principle of the country’s territorial integrity.
THIS IS FALSE.
Exactly the following was written in the article: “While we maintain our position that Crimea is part of Ukraine and must be returned, Crimea must not get in the way of a deal that ends the war in the east on an equitable basis.” Please check with the Ukrainian translation for accuracy.
I do not question the Ukrainian status of the peninsula for a single instant. After the Yalta European Strategy had no choice but to switch its annual meetings to Kyiv, we have not been considering its renaming for a single second. At every YES meeting, we repeatedly stress that its due legitimate place is in Yalta, and that it has been moved on a provisional basis.
However, I certainly perceive some discontent with my article with guilt. I mean the sharp reaction of the Crimean Tatars and other citizens of Ukraine living on the peninsula who have still remained loyal to our country. To them, the question “when will Crimea return back?” is not about a geopolitical equation, but about true suffering from the occupation or a wound caused by the loss of Motherland. I should have considered this when choosing the wording. Every day spent without Motherland is pain, and I am writing about 15 to 20 years. I said it the way I said because I am not a diplomat, I am an engineer. Perhaps, sometimes, when diplomats are unable to tell all the truth, straightforwardness of an engineer may be useful to start the debate. This is why I pumped more air into my lungs and said aloud what many think but remain silent.
The truth is that all politicians in our country and in the West tend not to talk about Crimea meaningfully. They are unable to suggest anything realistic. Crimea is discussed neither in the “Minsk” nor in the “Normandy” format. There is no clear “Crimea policy”.
This is why my article is useful, at least because this brings the issue of Crimea back to a meaningful debate.
We keep inviting all interested (especially, Crimean Tatar public figures) to debate meaningfully on ways to return Crimea back. I am willing to give them floor both at international forums and in the media.
However: Ukraine is suffering from the war. Crimea and Donbas are occupied. But these are different parts of one major problem, and solving one should not impede solution of the other.
And most importantly: blood is still being spilled in Donbas. And this must be stopped. We should assume compromise here.
However, with regard to the basic question, the question of Crimea’s belonging, there is no space for compromise. Crimea is Ukrainian. The annexation is illegal, the occupation is temporary.
And no compromise here. That’s it. The end of the story.
Donbas
Out of all the scenarios of development of the situation in Donbas, the peaceful settlement is an absolute priority for me.
The way how it will be achieved and on what terms, is subject to an open and fair debate, Nation-wide.
All tragedies of this scale have laws in common. They are started by humans, they are finished by humans, and these are also humans who die, lots of humans. Peace always has a high price.
But it is up to the Ukrainian society to decide how much and what way it is to be paid for. Those who are fighting in Donbas or those who are sending their sons there should have a decisive voice, in my opinion.
I am a citizen of Ukraine, and I am confident that now, our country’s strategy under the new circumstances should be thought about. If we fail to adapt, the deals will still be made, but over our heads, and at our expense then.
Relevance is one of manifestations of patriotism today. We have no right to miss “windows of opportunities” that the changing world is offering sometimes.
Dialogue
Patriotism means also to express one’s views frankly. To tell openly the truth, albeit unpleasant. Even maybe being mistaken, as truth is not always verity. But not to hesitate to suggest ideas if you think that these are useful for the country.
I had not been expecting everyone to agree with my article. It was important that active members of the civil society start discussing what it is about. The larger scale a brainstorm takes, the stronger is the chance for breakthrough ideas to come up.
It is important now that we think and suggest how to drive our country towards peace without detriment to national interests and success.
Labels should not be stuck in this debate. Although, if some have such a habit and it is the only way to feel comfortable for them, they are welcomed. It does not bother me (almost).
Because ultimately, it does matter what Ukrainian newest history books will be reading about our time in 20 or 30 years (among other, who betrayed, who capitulated, who mistook etcetera).
However, it is of an absolute importance how our country will look like in the geography book, and what it will read about the number of the population, whether it has increased or decreased.
And if it has decreased, FOR WHAT REASON THEN?
I know that overwhelming majority of those who criticized me, are dreaming, as I am, about the same: a free, European, peaceful and successful Ukraine, comprising Crimea and Donbas.
Yes, I agree. One may dream without being attached to the today’s reality. But it is not possible to make a dream come true without being adequate.
And one more thing. Compared to this our shared dream, divergences in our opinions are vanishingly small.
And betrayal would be not having for an absolute priority achieving this dream.
