Ending the war by giving up territory is unacceptable. This is not the legacy we should leave to future generations. Otherwise, they will face even greater troubles, believes Ukraine’s third president, Viktor Yushchenko.
Source: Gazeta.UA
Viktor Andriyovych spoke about the war, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s goals in Ukraine during a meeting with journalists at his home in the village of Novi Bezradichi.
Who or what created Putin?
Who created this international criminal? Primarily — Western policy and Western politicians, such as Angela Merkel. There were times when Germany celebrated: it paid $175 for gas, while Ukraine paid $480. In 2009, I discussed this with both Sarkozy and Berlusconi. We talked about how these countries had fallen into an economic trap by Russia, and Europe had lost its agency.
Europe paid dearly for cheap energy resources and its loyalty to the Russian dictator. It paid with the war now raging in the European home. Putinism, as the evil he brings, is a product of Western policy. Moreover, Putinism equals fascism plus nuclear weapons. For Putin, peace means staying where he is and grabbing a bit more. For us, peace means the return of all of Ukraine’s sovereign territories.
What else does Russia want?
Throughout its history, Russia has pursued the basic idea of colonizing Ukraine. It implements this idea through war. Currently, the 24th war is ongoing — counting from the emergence of the word “Russia” in 1721, which is 800 years later than the emergence of Rus. Rus and Russia are states that have never intersected, because they come from different worlds. For Russia, an independent Ukraine is a death sentence. In 2005, Putin answered where Russia’s borders end: where the Russian language ends. Add the Russian priest to the language, and you have the main tools of colonization.
By imposing its church and language, Russia deliberately weakened Ukraine and aimed to see us as a criminalized state. That is why Moscow applauded Viktor Yanukovych’s rise to power and his disruption of the European integration process in 2013. Ukraine will have to coexist with a state that seeks only harm for it for all time.
I am pleased with how consolidated Europe’s policy has changed
How to defeat Russia then?
I am pleased with how consolidated Europe’s policy has changed. What happened in 2022? President Macron spoke with Putin for several hours. What did they talk about? Putin was advancing, and European leaders were talking with him. Chancellor Scholz then assured that Germany would never provide weapons to Ukraine, sending only 5,000 helmets and 2,000 medical kits — that was Scholz’s first statement about aid. How did Germany’s chancellor finish his term? Everything in the Bundeswehr’s warehouses, except long-range missiles, was transferred to Ukraine.
Fifty-four countries of the anti-Putin alliance produce over 60% of global GDP, while Russia produces — if you exclude the military-industrial complex — zero useful products. If all 54 countries speak with one voice and fight one evil, are they potential winners? I believe so. Such an alliance has never existed. During World War II, the anti-Hitler coalition consisted of fewer states. If the economy is the blood of war, our alliance has far more blood and finances than Putin.
Are the US our ally now?
America should not sail alone, detached from Europe. For over two centuries, Europe has been America’s ally and strategic partner. Unfortunately, the world they built is not as strong, nor is NATO’s Article 5 — about assistance in case of an attack. Currently, there are “yellow cards,” like in football — the world raises them for many reasons. This is concerning, of course.
Still, the US is our friend. Support for Ukraine in the American community rose from 51% to 63%. In no other conflict does the American nation support one side as clearly as in our war. Of course, it is important that the American government listens to these voices and remains our partner. We have a good history of relations, starting from World War II.
We do not need to flatter Trump
But what about Trump — a very difficult personality?
The truth is on our side. Therefore, we do not need to paint portraits of Trump and flatter him to win him over. Such tactics should be left to Putin — he is a master manipulator and trap setter.
Unfortunately, Trump has fallen into these traps (here Yushchenko refers to the negotiations in Alaska — Gazeta.ua). Their contacts began with phone conversations, continued with a personal meeting on August 15, and will probably continue. I am not optimistic about the current agenda shaped by the criminal Putin and the American president. But if we are a nation, not a rabble, we can resist any influence.
Should we have kept nuclear weapons?
We did everything provided for by the agreement (the Budapest Memorandum, which was supposed to guarantee our security in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons — Gazeta.ua). And what did we get in return? The memorandum was about guarantees preventing threats from the signatory countries — the US, Russia, the UK, and later France and China. The only country that fulfilled the memorandum is Ukraine.
It was clear that accepting nuclear weapons in their existing form was very difficult. At the time, we did not meet even the basic budgetary needs. We had no partners in Europe or the world. To some extent, given the geopolitical situation, we had no choice but to give up nuclear weapons. But another question arises: why transfer these assets to Russia? Why not to America? Or why not create a corporate mechanism to manage these assets and prevent their transfer to Russia? At least tactical nuclear weapons should have been retained for Ukraine.
Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy — simply afraid of Putin
Why is Ukraine still not in NATO?
In 2008 (at the NATO summit in Bucharest — Gazeta.ua), during a break, I approached Ms. Merkel and asked why this resolution was adopted. She said, “If only you had greater NATO support.” But if in 2004 only 7% supported NATO membership, by 2008 it was 35%! I consider growing from 7% to 35% a significant achievement for a 45-million population, a major national awakening. In Spain, only 17% supported NATO membership, yet it joined the Alliance. We only asked for the MAP, the first step, which could have lasted another forty years.
The real reason was not the level of support among Ukrainians. Western leaders — Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy — were simply afraid of Putin. He arrived at the summit later and patted them on the shoulder: Ukraine is “an artificial state.” Putin already threatened to attack Ukraine if NATO expanded eastward, which did not prevent him from starting military aggression against Ukraine six years later — in 2014.
How can we achieve peace?
If we have a shared understanding with Europe and America of what peace is, we can easily assess whether our actions align with this plan. But if this concept is devalued, people begin talking about a ceasefire. And then what? We have already seen many ceasefire negotiations during the Minsk process, which led to nothing — Putin invaded Ukraine.
I draw a parallel with the Munich Agreement. To appease criminal Hitler, two leaders — Chamberlain and Daladier — invited Mussolini, went to Munich, and seated the President of Czechoslovakia in another room. In the name of peace, they finalized negotiations by giving Hitler part of sovereign Czechoslovak territory. “I bring you peace,” said Chamberlain to the British as he stepped off the plane. Nine months later, the largest war in human history began. So the word “peace” has a very broad meaning. When a country signs capitulation, peace comes. When a country wins, peace also comes. Which kind of peace do we want?
Trading Ukrainian territory for “peace” from Putin — unacceptable and futile
Should we make territorial concessions for peace?
The current war has no diplomatic solution. Diplomacy works where the world mobilizes and forms assets that allow us to move toward our shared victory.
We will not win this war symmetrically. We must think asymmetrically. In the Middle Ages, to hit one archer, you needed another archer. Today, one fighter can confront a group, provided he is armed with the most advanced weapons. The “cooperative” created in Ramstein must ensure Ukraine is supplied not just with the most modern weapons, but also with those not yet in production.
Exchanging Ukrainian territory for “peace” from Putin is unacceptable and futile. This would mean we acted wrongly and unfairly toward our children and grandchildren, passing on problems our generation should have solved, in a much more difficult form. This is not a solution; it only worsens the situation.
Approaching the 34th anniversary of Independence
In 34 years, our greatest achievement is that we have become a nation from a quasi-nation. We no longer have sharp debates over language, culture, memory, and our heroes as in the past. As Stepan Andriyovych Bandera once said: “The time will come when millions will respond ‘Glory to the heroes!’ to the greeting ‘Glory to the nation!’” That time has come.
Author: Natalia Lebid
Discussion about this post