We are with Volnovakha!

“My name is Volnovakha.” No, it is not my name. I was not in that bus or at that roadblock. I am not Volnovakha. But I feel acute pain over this news, for I am with Volnovakha. We are all with Volnovakha, as we are with Pisky, Ilovaisk, Izvaryne, Krymske, Horske, and Shchastia, with Donetsk, Luhansk, Debaltseve, Khriashchuvate, Triokhizbenka, and Mariupol. We are with them, and this means that we shall win.

The “ostrich strategy” is not an option for a way out

How should we regard these events? What to expect from the Kremlin? How should Ukrainian authorities act? We looked for answers to these questions in an interview with Doctor of Political Science, conflict resolution expert, professor at the Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Hryhorii Perepelytsia.

Back in the summer, after the Malaysian aircraft was shot down, the Verkhovna Rada called on the world to recognize the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) as terrorist organizations. President Petro Poroshenko made similar statements as well. Following the tragedy in Volnovakha, the Rada and the president are once again asking the world to recognize these terrorists as such. In your opinion, how persevering and consistent is the Ukrainian government in defending national interests?

“I think it is a methodological worldview problem, because the country’s leaders imposed on public consciousness from the very beginning the idea that there was no war with Russia, but there was terrorism in the Donbas as a local phenomenon sponsored by Russia. Philosophers call this way of reasoning sophistry, or changing definitions on the go. This has led to an inadequate perception of the situation and the phenomenon which is our relationship with Russia. First, they presented it to us as terrorism in Sloviansk, which was the legal basis for starting the anti-terrorist operation (ATO), and we began to label our enemy ‘terrorists.’ In fact, there has been no terrorism in the Donbas, because what there is, is a ‘hybrid war’ that began with the events in Crimea. This war was conducted at the beginning in the form of military occupation, and it changed shape as it came to the eastern regions of Ukraine. The objective was the implementation of what amounted to a military intervention in the Donbas. Russian intelligence agencies conducted a quite successful sabotage operation there, to attract the Russian-speaking population without a clear identity to the Russian side and use it as ‘cannon fodder’ in further stages of their invasion of Ukraine.

“Of course, the ‘hybrid warfare’ involves assorted appropriate tools. It is being conducted now in the form of sabotage and reconnaissance operations and regular military operations involving Russian troops, special forces, militants and local separatists who are now part of the Russian armed forces. This war has seen elements of armed terror used, which is a form of military conflict. Recent developments in Volnovakha were an act of armed terror as terrorists did not put forward any political demands (because they are not terrorists in the literal sense of the word). During the war in the Balkans, the Bosnian Serbs also widely used terror against Bosnian Muslims, but no one called Yugoslavia a terrorist state or the ‘Republic of Serbian Krajina’ a terrorist organization.

“As a result, the government, including the president, is now at an impasse, as they try to resolve the war issues through peaceful means. According to Poroshenko, we try to solve the issue through diplomatic means. However, diplomats cannot carry out military work, because they are not intended for this work. This is the same as trying to cut a giant oak with a cutlery knife, despite having a saw available. This is why we see no progress, confirmed once again by the so-called Normandy format meeting in Berlin. The presidential meeting in Astana is being made impossible, and Angela Merkel is right when she says that there is no point to gather time and again without any progress in resolving this conflict. There is no progress in sight, though, because objective conditions that enable diplomats to achieve even minimal success are absent. These conditions are formed not during the negotiations, but on the frontlines. Vladimir Putin understands very well this strategy and conducts himself according to the logic of war. Why we still do not consider this logic and try to portray the events as acts of terrorism and ATO, remains an unanswered question.

JANUARY 14, 2015. VERKHOVNA RADA / Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day

“What is the likely result of it? Of course, the situation is programmed for us to lose our positions in the Donbas. Should we lose this battle, talks will be a non-issue. The Kremlin will then negotiate the military surrender of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ withdrawal not just from the Donbas, but also from Odesa and Kherson regions as well as central Ukraine. Russia will follow it by occupying our entire territory. This is the likely result of this way of changing definitions on the go. So, one should not separate the Volnovakha attack and regard it as an act of political terror, for there wasn’t one. It was an act of armed terror, which is a tool of the ‘hybrid war.’

“The ideological tools still prevail in this hybrid war, as information warfare is used widely and dominates the conflict. Thus, we see Russian troops shooting at our civilians, and it is really an act of armed terror, aiming for ideological effect. One should not separate one bus which was fired upon from the whole process of the war against Ukraine. If we select this case and say that the DNR-LNR terrorists killed 12 of our citizens with the assistance of Russia, then Russia itself should be recognized as a terrorist nation. But is it really possible? The Irish Republican Army has not been recognized as a terrorist organization even by the EU. Therefore, there are no real mechanisms for recognition of Russia as a terrorist nation.”

“WHY ARE TERRORISTS ELIMINATED IN FRANCE AND ONLY CONDEMNED IN UKRAINE?”

Hennadii DRUZENKO, governmental authorized representative for ethnic and national policies:

“I have a lot of slogan-type questions. First of all to our government: ‘Why are terrorists eliminated in France and only condemned in Ukraine?’ and then ‘Will Europe show solidarity with Ukraine?’ For the Ukrainians have showered the French embassy with flowers, but there are not so many flowers at the Ukrainian embassy’s door in Paris. As for solidarity with Ukrainians in the Donbas, our citizens have long been showing it in the shape of volunteers, etc. As far as I can see it, the Sunday march is Ukraine’s question to Europe: are we still a post-colony for them, and do they consider the death of 12 Ukrainians as statistics, or we are really equal and, hence, we are supposed to expect the same sympathy that was in Paris? The acts of terror in the French capital and near Volnovakha are very consonant in terms of the number of the killed civilians, the circumstances, and tragicalness. We shall see here whether Europe still divides the world into Europeans and ‘second-rate people’ or it also considers Ukrainians as Europeans who arouse as much pity as French people do.”

“LET US RISE IN DEFENSE OF OUR FATHERLAND FROM THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSOR!”

Volodymyr OHRYZKO, ex-foreign minister of Ukraine:

“In my view, the closest slogan may be ‘Let us rise in defense of our fatherland from the Russian aggressor!’ or ‘Let us make a joint effort to stop the aggressor country!’ What we can see now is only consequences, while the crux of the matter is that there is an aggressor country, a terrorist country, which has attacked us. These slogans suggest that the authorities, the people, the public, and the international community should do this jointly.”

By Ivan KAPSAMUN, Dmytro KRYVTSUN The Day