On Dec. 9, Ukraine’s President Zelensky came onto the stage in Paris in the role as the advocate for a sovereign and independent Ukraine that calls him to assert Ukraine’s national interest in a continuing process of “de-Russify” Ukraine’s immediate and long term future.
Although the “Steinmeier formula” was the contextual premise used to begin talks within the Normandy Format, which include France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia, to stop Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, to accept and strictly adhere to the Western-influenced assumptions of the formula that were introduced to contain Russia’s deceptive act of war at that moment, would be irresponsible, as they do not take into consideration new facts and present realities.
In a recent conversation with a retired Ukrainian ambassador to a G-7 country, it was suggested that after over three years of no discussions, and with no “changes”, it would be good to talk. But two questions persist: talk about what and for what purpose?
But even more, it must be asked: are the scheduled discussions to result in the fulfillment of western and Russian interests or the re-establishment of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territories and recognized borders according to international law free from the internal meddling of the Russian Federation?
The ambassador’s analysis stating that nothing has changed is incorrect. For much has changed.
Ukraine, the aggrieved party, has lost and suffered close to 14,000 military and civilian deaths. During the same time, Ukraine has had to deal with the additional trauma of experiencing and having to deal with almost 1.6 million internally displaced persons, a number equivalent to the populations of Philadelphia and Dallas, or Barcelona and Milan.
In a recent interview, President Zelensky was asked if he could trust anyone, he responded without equivocation, saying, “I don’t trust anyone”. He is entitled to such an answer, especially in regard to Russia.
As the president of a country that has experienced dominance and oppression at the hands of numerous interlopers, and which would include the Poles, Germans, and especially the Russians, he would be justified.
Whether it be the practice of serfdom, the imposition of a Moscow inspired totalitarian system in Ukraine, the deliberate repression and extermination of Ukraine’s intellectual elites, the demeaning of the Ukrainian language in public life, the russification of Ukrainian culture, the forced “russification” of its populace during Soviet times through internal migration, the planned genocide of Ukrainian village inhabitants costing the lives of millions, a harrowing occupation by the Germans, the imprisonment and psychiatric abuse of dissidents who fought for basic human rights and the free expression of Ukraine’s national identity, the shrewd coercion to signing the Budapest memorandum, whereby Ukraine gave up its position as the third-largest nuclear power in the world, the “oligarchization” of its economic culture during the Kuchma years based on the Russian model that continues to suppress Ukraine’s economic ambitions to this day, the nagging cancer of immorality in its political system and the eventual deception of Russian attack and occupation, Russia especially, has never been a good neighbor to Ukraine,
Thus, if for nothing else, Zelensky’s primary responsibility on the world stage of Paris is to familiarize the world that Ukraine is in the midst of attempting a national renaissance and that for it to fulfill its national destiny, It is essential that it “de-Russify”. He must argue, that the world must finally accept that Ukraine is not Russia, that it never was, but that in its essential nature, it is the embodiment of a European cultural and philosophical essence.
That said, Russia, because of its eastern orientation, has been, is, and will continue to be an existential threat to Ukraine. It must accept the fact of Ukrainian national independence.
Therefore, a democratic and western orientated Ukraine that is undaunted in its expression of national sovereignty and identity is a perceived threat by Russia. Of course, this should be a preposterous notion to the western mind, but Russia, in its overt chauvinism, cannot conceive nor fathom this historic fact. Zelensky must convince the participants in Paris that the notion of a vibrant “Russky mir”, is not only an existential threat to Ukraine but to them as well.
Though the Maidan was a seminal event in Ukraine’s modern history which categorically rejected the culture of corruption during the Viktor Yanukovych regime and his failure to fulfill a promise to join “Europe”, Ukraine remains a corrupt country, still heavily affected by a Russian inspired oligarchic economic and values system introduced by president Leonid Kuchma, unable to attract foreign institutional investment that would tie western economic interest with Ukraine’s security interests.
Considering the possibilities of Paris, one must imagine how different Ukraine’s present predicament would be if its European partners and the United States not only spoke of their security interests in Ukraine but also of their economic interests and the need to protect their corporate investments.
To their corporate credit, Ukraine’s people have rebelled against the oligarchic values set and have electorally proven their determination to change their culture and move away from Russia and towards a western institutional orientation. There remains no doubt to the vast majority of Ukrainians, even those caught in the hopeless world of Russian influenced occupational domination, that the continual Russian occupation is a threat to national sovereignty and independence and to the fulfillment of their economic ambitions.
That said, what the Poroshenko regime and the present Zelensky administration have failed to fully understand is that its continual, and the heretofore unresolved problem with corruption is the biggest impediment to western investment in Ukraine, and thus, its security interests vis a vis Russia. What president Zelensky must illustrate in Paris is the awareness and resolve that Ukraine has chosen the path of Western economic investment. Realizing that only this will have a proportionate effect on its national security.
If Ukraine is to be considered “western” and experience the security of being a European country, a desire consistently expressed by the last two administrations, it must act like it, re-ordering its institutions based on the rule of law, finally realizing that rhetorical arguments have become mundane to the western ear. This is an essential element of Ukraine’s attempt to “de-Russify,” for, in this attempt, it will not only define itself but to its neighbor Russia, to its European partners and to the world.
These are the themes that must make up the historic narrative that Ukraine must assert in Paris
Now, what does Russia want?
Russia is attempting to reconstitute its empire. Contained within this preposterous chauvinist, and as some would even argue, racist assumption, Ukraine, they will deceptively assert, is an essential part of their world and sphere of influence.
Putin will attempt to convince the Europeans to “trade” Ukraine for “peace” and improved political and economic relations. This will be a tempting offer, but the Europeans must resist and be reminded that they have a moral obligation and responsibility to affirm the traditions of the Treaty of Westphalia, and must articulate the historic validity of an independent, sovereign and democratic Ukraine. By invading Ukraine, Putin, following Hitler’s linguistic premise of invasion of Czechoslovakia, directly challenged the historic validity of this long-held principle, and whether it is accepted or not, challenged the validity of the very notion of the independent nation-state.
Russia wants to re-enter the international order, if not only to have Western sanctions lifted but to influence what seems to be a new re-emerging world order.
It wants Ukraine under its influence and to restore its presence within its sphere.
It wants to destabilize Ukraine, to keep it divided and in a weakened state.
It wants to stem its cultural and national renaissance.
It wants to institutionalize its influence in the occupied territories and to control Ukraine’s emergence as a European nation throughout its territory by way of a legally binding international agreement.
It wants to prevent Ukraine’s entrance to NATO.
Russia wants to push Ukraine into the status of a failed modern nation-state.
President Zelensky, democratically elected and given a massive electoral mandate, must carefully balance his electoral promise for ending the war in Donbas, but in seeking peace, he must not allow for continued Russian influence on Ukrainian territory.
Failing in Paris is an acceptable option if it means he is to accept a forced agreement to compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty. The largest protests in post-Maidan that took place in Kyiv last month will be an internal reminder to him not to waver in his resolve.
It will be historically and politically untenable for Zelensky to submit Ukraine or to subjugate to the demands of Russia in any negotiation that institutionalizes Russia’s unlawful aggression unto Ukraine’s sovereign lands. This aggression cannot stand under any circumstances, let alone be “rewarded” at a negotiating table.
Such developments would compromise Ukraine’s historically recognized borders, but also the sacrificial integrity of its warriors and the displaced and the moral resolve of a culturally unique peoples’ determination to overcome the oppression of the Russian empire. In addition, it could fatally compromise the rules-based order that has governed the world order since the second world war. Russia directly challenged this principle in its unlawful war in Ukraine.
A compromise is a form of capitulation. Capitulation in the guise of a negotiated compromise with an authoritarian dictator is appeasement. This historic lesson is often conveniently denied as it is often wrapped in a cloak of hope, with a wish that the authoritarian conundrum and threat would dissipate and disappear. The wishes of civil societies for peace at any price are always the prerogatives that authoritarians use to dominate their interlocutors and neighbors. This tactic will be used by Putin in Paris.
Nonetheless, to be enemies does not mean to exist in a state of war. However, to achieve peace, one has to have a trustworthy partner who can be counted upon, not only as an equal interlocutor, but one who can be trusted to honor agreements. Russia has illustrated that it is not such a partner. Furthermore, it remains to be seen if talks within the Normandy format are even the context within which an equitable “agreement” can be reached.
The content, and indeed the style of how president Zelensky comports himself in Paris will not only define his presidency but more critically, it will define Ukraine’s road to freedom, defining its long term historical trajectory.
Paris will reveal, if not answer the question of whether Ukraine and its western partners will continue to countenance the pernicious Russian influence on Ukraine’s existence. It will also reveal if Ukraine will take the responsibility to emancipate itself, distinguishing itself as a sovereign, independent, and law-abiding state confident in the elucidation of its national interest to the rest of the world.
