Debates at the 51st Munich Security Conference, particularly as part of the panel discussion “The Conflict over Ukraine and European Security,” showed that the world had split into two parts. The vast majority of the participants, who, figuratively speaking, represented the world of freedom, came out to support Ukraine’s efforts to resist the Russian aggression. Russia, traditionally represented in Munich by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and chairman of the Council of Federation’s foreign affairs committee Konstantin Kosachev, found itself in isolation and represented the world of lies.
BANDERA AND SHUKHEVYCH, LAVROV’S INTERPRETATION OF THE MAIDAN
Both Russian representatives were flatly lying and denying Russia’s involvement in the Donbas crisis. They justified the annexation of Crimea as exercise of the right of nations to self-determination. Lavrov even said there had been no referendums in Kosovo and East Germany, which provoked laughter among the audience. The two Russians emphasized that the Ukraine crisis was of a domestic nature and had been caused by the refusal of eastern Ukrainians to accept the Kyiv coup in February 2014. Kosachev went so far as to say that there are several million of Donbas refugees in Russia, while in reality there are 1 million refugees from this region and Crimea in Ukraine and, officially, only 700,000 Donbas refugees in Russia.
Astonishingly, neither Lavrov nor Kosachev were giving answers to concrete questions. For example, British journalist Edward Lucas asked why Russian bombers had been flying dangerously close to passenger airplane and switching off transponders, which makes a plane invisible. Hearing Lavrov’s complaints about the Americans, Dr. Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of the newspaper Die Zeit, asked: “If you have problems with the US, why are you forcing Ukraine to pay for this and seized some of its territory?” In reply, Lavrov noted that the two had a distorted view of the situation and began to tell about his interpretation of the “coup” staged in Kyiv earlier last year and about how Donbas civilians suffer at the hands of the Ukrainian army.
Kosachev in turn began to accuse the Ukrainian authorities of forcing everybody to speak Ukrainian and instituting a holiday in honor of Bandera and Shukhevych who opposed the integrity of Poland. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who took part in the signing of the well-known agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition, said to this that he did not like it, either, that Dzerzhinsky and Lenin were heroes in Russia. In other words, Russia goes on living in a reality of its own, which is being shaped by state-run propagandistic television.
MERKEL WAS REMINDED OF FREDERICK THE GREAT’S APHORISM
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for waking up to the realty. She emphasized in her speech that borders in Europe are inviolable and nations must determine the right to their own future.
Although Germany continues to supply arms to Iraq and Afghanistan, Merkel strongly opposes the delivery of weapons to Ukraine. She thinks the conflict in Ukraine cannot be settled militarily. Boosting the supply of arms to Ukraine will result in more bloodshed. Sir Malcolm Rifkind reminded the chancellor of Frederick the Great’s words: “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments” and asked how Putin can be forced to take a peaceful attitude, as he holds an advantageous position in the conflict. “I am 100-percent sure that our principles will get the upper hand. Nobody knew that the Cold War would end, but it ended,” she answered.
President Toomas Ilves of Estonia drew Merkel’s attention to the fact that the Ukrainian army has a much more obsolete weaponry than Russia and emphasized that diplomacy would fail unless Ukraine was given arms. The chancellor said to this that she was convinced that more weapons would not solve the conflict. She added that the question is in what democracy is capable of.
And if we add to this that Merkel does not trust Putin in observing the reached agreements, how can we pin our hopes on diplomacy alone?
Leszek Balcerowicz characterized Merkel’s position very well in Twitter: “Germany and France do not want to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capability in order to stop bloodshed. But does the blood of poorly-armed Ukrainians not matter?”
From this angle, a more constructive attitude was taken by US delegates, especially senators, who unanimously favor giving weapons to Ukraine. US Senator Lindsey Graham did not agree with the chancellor’s position. “She can’t see how arming people who are willing to fight and die for their freedom makes things better. I do. I think it will increase the cost of the Russian intervention and people will see that fighting for freedom is not just empty words,” Graham said.
In his view, “nothing will change in Ukraine until the balance of costs changes for those who are trying to stifle this struggling democracy.”
BIDEN ON PUTIN’S CHOICE AND A THREAT TO EUROPE
The official viewpoint of the US administration was spelled out at the conference by Vice President Joe Biden who kept the audience waiting for him for almost an hour. By tradition, he began his speech with a half-joke: “I wish I could say those phone calls, I solved all the problems. But I didn’t.”
He paid the Old World a compliment, saying twice that Europe is the cornerstone of the United States’ engagement in the rest of the world. Recalling the well-known and now failed policy of ‘reset,’ Biden said we must now reassert – not reset – the bedrock principle of a united, free, and prosperous Europe.
After saying what the US and the West had done to establish cooperation with Russia and help it become a prosperous country, he noted that, unfortunately, Putin had chosen a different path, the path of increased repression at home and aggression against his neighbor. As a result, the world looks worse. Accordingly, the vice president stressed, we must adhere to such principles as freedom, stability, inviolable borders, and no spheres of influence.
In Biden’s opinion, there are three threats to Europe. First, the attempt to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty; second, the use of corruption as an instrument to try to undermine governments; and, third, the use of energy as a tool of coercion. These threats are coming from Russia which has violated all the international norms and is widely using corruption and energy resources to influence Europe.
So, the vice president believes that the most rational policy to resist Russia is, firstly, to support Ukraine, secondly, to fight corruption, and, thirdly, to increase energy security.
On the other hand, Biden emphasized: “But President Putin has to make a simple, stark choice: get out of Ukraine or face continued isolation and growing economic costs at home.” The vice president also said, taking into account Russia’s recent history, that the US would judge Moscow by its deeds, not by its words. “Don’t tell us. Show us, President Putin. Too many times President Putin has promised peace, and delivered tanks…, while the leadership of separatists… is directly answerable to Mr. Putin,” he stressed.
EUROPE SHOULD WRITE ITS HISTORY BY ITSELF, OTHERWISE RUSSIA WILL DO SO INSTEAD OF IT
Incidentally, this year’s conference saw for the first time a panel discussion attended by four presidents – of Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Finland. In his speech, Petro Poroshenko recalled that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons capability 20 years ago in exchange for guarantees and now it is eligible for acquiring non-lethal defensive weapons to protect its territorial integrity. In the president’s words, the absence of a nuclear potential is triggering aggressive actions against Ukraine. He emphasized that the Minsk Agreements should form the basis of a settlement – all the 12 clauses must be fulfilled. A true peace is possible under these conditions. Poroshenko also said he would hold no negotiations with leaders of the terrorist organizations “DNR” and “LNR” and was not going to recognize the new line of disengagement, on which Moscow insists.
As Russian representatives had said at the previous panel discussions that Russia did not send its soldiers to the Donbas, Poroshenko demonstrated some passports and military IDs of Russian servicemen.
The Ukrainian leader suggested adopting a new European Responsibility Charter which will comprise clear-cut mechanisms for punishing those who violate territorial integrity. Touching on the question of reforms, Poroshenko emphasized that the war is not just a suitable occasion for the Ukrainian government to carry out reforms. And fighting corruption is a topmost priority, he added. In his words, the Anticorruption Bureau director will be appointed in a week. He also hopes that the date of the introduction of a visa-free regime with the EU will be announced at the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga.
By contrast with Merkel, Lithuania’s President Dalia Grybauskaite, who openly calls Russia aggressor, is not afraid to supply arms to Ukraine. Speaking after Poroshenko, she said her government would do its best to help Ukraine. At the same time, she believes that Merkel’s diplomacy should be given a chance, but we should know who we are dealing with and must support Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine, we support ourselves.
Also interesting was the speech of Bulgaria’s President Rosen Plevneliev who said we are facing three challenges. Firstly, it is cold peace, when we see the mentality of cold war and spheres of influence coming back from the past. Secondly, it is a link between integration and globalization. And Russia has risen up against globalization, and its economy has never tried to adapt to globalization. Meanwhile, Russia is using the energy weapon instead of developing new high-tech sectors. Moreover, the Bulgarian president said, how can you explain the fact that your neighbor can forbid you to join the EU, which is Russia’s case? And, thirdly, it is important for Europe to write its own history – if we do not write it, Russia will do it instead of us.
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON PUTIN’S PLANS IN UKRAINE
Panel moderator Jane Harman, President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, asked the presidents about the goal Putin is pursuing in Ukraine. President Sauli Niinisto of Finland said that nobody is likely to know Putin’s true goal. Most probably, he wants to have an unstable Ukraine and looks for an opportunity to do something else. I don’t think he has a logical plan. Once the Ukrainian army gains a success in defense, new destabilization convoys come in from Russia, Niinisto pointed out.
Grybauskaite thinks that Putin has no real plan and responds to weakness. He shows the type of a leader aimed at ruination, not construction. We must understand this and declare that we will not tolerate it.
In Plevneliev’s view, Putin wants to keep Ukraine from becoming a new Poland. The Bulgarian president reminded the debaters that Poland had been poorer than Ukraine 25 years ago. But the two countries followed different paths after the downfall of communist regimes. Poland carried out bold reforms and ensured the rule of law, while Ukraine opted for the Russian oligarchic model.
Poroshenko thinks it is hardly possible to foresee a clear-cut plan. At the same time, he says that Putin’s strategic goal is to build a Russian world, where all decisions will be made in Moscow.
The Ukrainian president disclosed his own plan which says that Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves, demand democratic freedoms, reforms, and security.
“Over 75 percent of the Ukrainians want Ukraine to be an EU member. We want the civilized world, the EU, to show unity and solidarity with Ukraine. We will outlive this difficult period, and Ukraine will gain an EU membership prospects in six years’ time,” Poroshenko said confidently.
This is a good prospect, but Ukraine’s chief goal today is to stem the Russian aggression and throw away separatists and heavily-armed Russian soldiers from our territory. In other words, we must put the Minsk Agreements into practice at any cost and to do so, as was mentioned above, we should make use of both diplomacy and weapons, the former being powerless without the latter. Naturally, it is important that the EU and the world take a united stand over the Russian aggression, and we should, of course, carry out the reforms that will enable Ukraine to earn the critically needed funds to revitalize its economy. This is what the Ukrainians expect first of all from the elected leadership.
