Ukrainian experts have been in the heat of the dispute recently around the articles by Victor Pinchuk and Vasyl Filipchuk published, respectively, in the American Wall Street Journal and the Ukrainian electronic edition Apostrophe. The articles have been known to contain proposals on the possible ways to end the aggressive war that Russia is waging against Ukraine.
Of course, every expert has a right for his own view on the current situation and ways out of it. However, synchronous publication of both articles, as well as the identical approaches proposed to achieve peace, give every reason to believe that we are facing a well-staged information campaign, the aim of which, despite all the fine words, does not meet the interests of the Ukrainian people. Moreover, it is possible that one of the objectives of these articles is to try to spread the illusion of dominance of the suggested ideas among Ukrainian experts in the wide circles of foreign and domestic public.
In this connection, the Centre for Russian Studies considers it necessary to point out without a detailed analysis of the articles that they are built on a series of delusive ideas and assumptions. In particular, according to the logic of the authors:
1. The main reason of Russian aggression is the desire of Ukraine to join the EU and NATO in the future, whose enlargement allegedly threatens the security of Russia. Therefore, Ukraine should abandon the European and the Euro-Atlantic integration.
In this connection, the authors of the articles should recall that Ukraine was non-aligned at the time of the aggression. So how did it help her? They should also understand an obvious fact that the main purpose of the Russian aggression is an attempt of Russia to restore the superpower status and re-establish the Russian empire in the former boundaries. And independent Ukraine, as it has been in history, is the main obstacle on the way. The future of Ukraine varies in the eyes of Russian politicians within the framework of the Russian protectorate or the Federal District of Russia and not more.
2. The authors contend that Russia is an agreement able state capable to fulfil honestly its commitments, and therefore it is necessary to negotiate with it and make concessions up to handing over a part of the Ukrainian territory to it for interim administering.
Their illusory and non-professional vision does not require any special arguments. Suffice it to recall that the list of international treaties and standards of international law violated by Russia over the last three years exceeds all bounds. Today there are no grounds to assume that Russia would adhere to its obligations under possible agreements and in response to unilateral concessions from Ukraine.
3. According to the authors, the aggressors can be stopped by appeasement, unilateral concessions which would make them give up hostile actions. And such concessions would be the above transfer of a part of the Ukrainian territory to Russia for interim administering.
However, historical experience shows that "appeasement of an aggressor" has the opposite effect in practice, i.e. it stimulates the build-up of aggression. This is especially true of Russia, who understands only the language of force, and it qualifies any other style of behaviour as weakness, in response to which pressure should be added in order to get more. There is every reason to believe that Russian pressure on Ukraine with various methods of hybrid war would only grow in case of promoting the ideas of "appeasement". Therefore, this way will not prevent new victims in a military confrontation with Russia, but would also steal a chance for any decent future for our descendants.
It is also necessary to emphasize that the proposed idea of recognizing formal sovereignty of Ukraine at the part of the Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia while maintaining there the Russian administration, carrying out election at the occupied territories without sufficient security and other conditions, federalization of this country and so on, in practice is nothing but an attempt to find a way to legitimize the Russian occupation. In other words, the principal suggestions of the above publications are aimed primarily at protecting the interests of the aggressor - the Russian Federation. Protection of the interests of Ukraine is out of the question in them in fact. Actually, it is not quite clear why Ukraine has to pay such an enormous price as the recognition of a loss of sovereignty over a part of its territory, for the aggression of Russia and its gross violation of international law and its numerous commitments. And how should the aggressor be punished?
Thus, taking into account:
- fallacy of the idea of the appeasement of aggression in general;
- the main aim of the policy of Russia - elimination of independence of Ukraine;
- absolute inability of Russia to reach agreements;
- focus of the publications on promoting the interests of Russia at the expense of the interests of this country,
the ideas proposed in the considered articles are unacceptable. They are contrary to the interests of Ukraine and her citizens.
Moreover, these ideas are not new. Both the Russian Federation and some of its supporters in political circles in the West have tried to impose this type of approaches on Ukraine. However, these attempts have met stiff resistance in the Ukrainian society. Position of the latter with regard to the aggressor - Russia - remains unchanged. Accordingly, the articles do not represent the position of civil society in Ukraine and can be considered only as the point of view of some experts.
And there is nothing to say as for the moral and ethical side of things. It seems that both contributors may have played a mean trick upon themselves even though they are not fully aware of that.