Occupation: we need clarity

After Nadia Savchenko made a series of statements, some of them lending themselves to multiple interpretation, in particular the one regarding the possibility of opening a “direct dialog” with representatives of the occupying power, we have seen a lively debate, with people asking incredulously if the government of Ukraine is really prepared for such a contact. One can understand Savchenko’s thinking on a purely psychological basis. As a politician, she is inexperienced, as a person, she is quite hot-tempered, and when looking at our own political swamp surrounding her, even the enemy may come to seem the only party worth talking to. With it, Savchenko has at least something in common, such as frontline experience. Certainly, the rhetoric used by Savchenko works to the Kremlin’s advantage. From the very beginning of the Russian aggression, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated the need for a direct dialog between Ukraine and the puppet “governments” of the occupied Donbas. On every occasion, the Russian side tried to maneuver the government of Ukraine into such contacts, thus legitimizing its blood-covered puppets.

It is just that our public tends to believe for some reason that our government is aware that this must not be done. Sometimes, however, it seems that our leaders just cannot find a way to wrap this step so as to avoid any political backlash. On closer inspection, the representatives of the government of Ukraine and the Kremlin have much in common. For example, recent constitutional amendments, which have effectively enabled the president to make final appointments of judges and allowed registered attorneys to monopolize legal representation, benefit Petro Poroshenko and Putin, who now has a trump card in international negotiations since he can claim that if Ukraine amended its Basic Law, it was clearly not in a state of war. And if there is no war, there can be no aggressor either. Everything else can be discounted as mere demagogy. Thus, Savchenko, who started making political statements literally on the threshold of the airport terminal instead of undergoing a rehabilitation course first, has been voicing not just the Kremlin’s messages, but hidden thoughts of the Ukrainian government as well.

This picture is supported also by the fact that no organizer of separatist movements has been prosecuted and sentenced over the past two years. Coal-laden trains ply their usual routes, and the line of contact is being more generally commercialized as well. And moreover, these developments suit well the overall logic of businesses which are jointly owned by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Ministries which are to “profitably deploy” Donbas reconstruction funding have already been established, and the issue of “reintegrating” territories that have not been liberated is being openly discussed. The last point resembles somewhat the decision to rename the occupied cities of the Donbas, where the Ukrainian government has had no control for two years, and the impression is that it had no control for two pre-war decades as well.

It is no secret that Putin’s 2014 plans included not just the Donbas, but at least 10 regions, that is, the entirety of south-eastern Ukraine. But this area, despite false notions spread by propaganda, reacted rather coolly to the prospect of the so-called Russian World. “Cannon fodder” men who were handed assault rifles in the spring of 2014 had deserted or died by the time the hot summer started. Putin then found himself in a major conundrum, faced with the need for large-scale overt military intervention, which was hard to disguise as “local militias’ actions.” Therefore, he postponed the fake referendum from March 18 to May 11, and even formally requested in May 2014 another postponement of this so-called vote to a later date, so as to “create essential conditions.” South-eastern Ukraine refused to rise up. This fact brought about a prolonged war, a smoldering conflict that requires constant infusions of resources and forces Russia to deal with unpleasant sanctions. The last hit not so much the economy but rather wallets of some important individuals. By the way, these Russian individuals are capable of reconciling with some important individuals in Europe. This requires only a pretext, for example, at least some semblance of Russia’s compliance with the Minsk Agreements. And it seems that the Ukrainian government is ready for such concessions on its part. The rehearsal of amending the Constitution has already been held. It is possible that the “direct dialog” on the release of prisoners may become the direct dialog concerning representation of Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics” in Kyiv.

Therefore, Putin will try to use the language of “reconciliation” to complete the occupation. Hence the rhetoric of some our politicians and journalists, who say that we need to combat “hate speech.” The guiding principle of boxing is to use the occasion when the enemy lowers his hands, even if momentarily, to deal a blow. Putin will surely keep hitting, if only because it follows from his philosophy of life, his very nature. It would not be surprising to learn that Putin watched the Marseille soccer fans’ clashes rather than the most recent game of the Russian team. He uses all tools to scare Europe just as he scared Angela Merkel with a dog, since she is mortally afraid of them. This is the style of this Cheka operative, who even eliminates his opponents in a theatrical manner, brazenly killing them at the walls of the Kremlin, like Boris Nemtsov. And the recent shelling of Butivka that killed four Ukrainian soldiers is only a means to push Ukraine into making these concessions. Let us recall that the Presidential Commissioner for the Peaceful Settlement of the Situation in the Donbas Iryna Herashchenko declared that we had a record number of losses in the front in the past four weeks.

The parliament which easily votes through amendments to the Constitution should have long voted on other acts, such as the “Law on Occupied Territories of the Donbas.” This law could have crossed all the t’s: firstly, it would have legally (not politically) recorded Russia’s violation of international law; secondly, it would have raised the issue of the responsibility of the aggressor country (instead of shifting responsibility for the restoration of the Donbas to Ukraine!); thirdly, it would have put paid to the issue of holding elections in the occupied territories. But it seems that this is not part of the algorithm of “peaceful settlement,” which its authors intend to employ as the final stage of the occupation.

“DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS WITH TERRORISTS WOULD GIVE RUSSIA A PRETEXT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MINSK PROCESS”

Serhii VYSOTSKY, MP, People’s Front:

“It is impossible to discuss the reintegration of the Donbas as long as it is occupied. That is, de-occupation should be our priority. This de-occupation is to take place only on our terms and only after Russia has suffered a downfall and turned into a normal state. Before that happens, Russia will do everything to maintain its presence in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The fundamental point is that the return of their territories to Ukraine should not happen under some imposed conditions. All our efforts should be focused on dismantling the Russian state in its present form. After the de-occupation, I am absolutely convinced we will have to suspend civil rights of those who openly collaborated with the invader. We will have to amnesty those citizens who were not taking part in hostilities. That is, people who voted in the fake referendum should not be prosecuted under the criminal code, but they should have no right to elect the Ukrainian government.

“If we agree to direct negotiations with leaders of the terrorists, it will be a pretext for Russia to withdraw from the Minsk process and thus disclaim any responsibility. In fact, it will undermine the Minsk Agreements and bring about recognition of the war in eastern Ukraine as an internal conflict. In addition, if we talk about global sanctions against Russia, we must be brave enough to impose sanctions of our own as well. If the US adds Viktor Medvedchuk to the sanctioned persons list, while we pretend that he represents someone in Minsk, this is nonsense. So far, I have not seen the parliament passing the relevant laws. If the law on occupied territories gets submitted to the Rada, I will certainly vote for it, because this issue surely needs clarity.”