The current political situation is characterized by persistent attempts of a majority of our citizens to form a civil society in Ukraine that will clearly identify with European democratic values. Events that occurred in the period starting in November 2013 have been a convincing evidence of it. It is our civilizational choice that poses a real threat to the existence of the Russian Empire, because the Kremlin understands well that a thriving and prosperous Ukraine, built on democratic values, is a real threat to the existential principles of authoritarian Russia.
At the same time, and it must be admitted honestly, part of our society continues to be influenced by the propaganda of another state and nostalgic stereotypes of the past, based on which Russia shapes its policy, essentially aggressive, but wrapped in a pretty cover.
On the other hand, the current situation is actively influenced by the fact that the new political and military leadership of the country, having a lot of new faces in its ranks, has been not ready to be proactive, to make appropriate decisions and implement them under conditions of a military and political crisis. When the defense minister, being a political appointee, said that he needed a political decision of his superiors to act, it became evident that he was less than clearly understanding the system in which he came to work.
It should be noted that the behavior of the Ukrainian authorities has been influenced by the very restrained policy of the Western establishment, which has been suggesting to our leaders political and diplomatic approach in this situation, without giving in to the Russian provocations. One can understand our Western partners, who are still suffering from the Caucasian syndrome of 2008. However, geopolitics is diverse. One may not use rigid approaches in it. Adequacy, flexibility and activity are what we lack at the moment. Let us recall the Sudetenland, where they tried to appease the aggressor. We all know how it ended. It turns out that history has not taught us anything. Consequences of a similar approach are evident as we look at the occupied Crimea. The adversary is still actively using in this country bribery, blackmail, the fifth column, which infiltrated the Ukrainian authorities under the Yanukovych regime, and radical extremists.
It is common knowledge that soft power without hard power is no power at all, and impotence is a path to defeat. That is what happened in Crimea. The questions now arising include not only “what is next?” but first of all “what to do next?”
It was at this decisive time that a group of Ukrainian high-level experts, who were neither civil servants nor representatives of political forces, arrived in Brussels at the invitation of the NATO.
We were really busy there, holding meetings with senior officials of the political and military structures of the NATO, ambassadors, experts and representatives of national delegations, and discussing a wide range of issues, from assessment of the current situation to practical mechanisms for cooperation in various sectors.
It should be noted that both sides were broadly in agreement in their assessments of the current situation and analytical forecasts on the possible directions of development of the crisis. The Alliance confirmed its readiness to strengthen cooperation in the military-technical field and discussed the protection of critical infrastructure, expert support, information sharing, etc.
We ascertained further actions of the Russian Federation as extremely threatening for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the European community, as well as held candid enough and intense discussions on possible mechanisms for the NATO countries to support Ukraine.
What conclusions can be drawn from these meetings?
The main thing is the need to consolidate all the efforts of Ukraine and the international community to counter the aggressor, which has not been actually done yet. There are fragmentary efforts, mostly of political and economic nature. We need consistency considering that the aggressor can be only stopped, not talked into stopping. Therefore, now is the time for our experts in Brussels and other European capitals to develop and implement various support and cooperation mechanisms, which should be specific and effective.
Unfortunately, a number of politicians are trying to assess the actions of the Russian side from the point of logic and common sense. This is a fundamental mistake. It is worth recalling the methods, forms, and ways that side uses to achieve its aim – intimidation, cynicism, lies, dirty technologies, threats, and coercion are not instruments of choice, rather an appropriate and acceptable approach. Look at its actions in Chechnya and Georgia.
Understanding this, we need to develop a corresponding adequate approach. Pragmatism and clear practical guidelines, political-diplomatic, economic, defense, and others, in relations with the RF are what we need today for near-term outlook, as well as the understanding that the problem cannot be solved exclusively by diplomatic measures and blind belief in the promises of the aggressor.
If the RF has concentrated a huge offensive combat power in the Crimea and at the borders of our state, it plans to go far. We cannot soothe ourselves with the honey words of our opponents. Why do they need multiple artillery rocket systems and front bombardiers in the Crimea, strategic aviation, relocated to Voronezh vicinity, an airborne unit really prepared for airborne operations with a 500-kilometer penetration near our borders? Simply to waste a hundred or two billion dollars? We should not create illusions.
Another moment is that the Crimean occupation started a huge geopolitical shift under the aegis of destruction of security system created after the World War Two. In fact, there are all signs that Moscow is trying to establish a new European order. All of us must understand this, as well as the West, and we also must understand that not everyone perceives adequate assessments.
There is no doubt that the Crimea is a painful question, if we take into account what has happened there. The moment when we should have worked proactively and operate in parallel with Russian armed forces was lost. That would have been a game of nerves, but the conflict could have been suppressed. There has been such experience in our history. Why we failed to use it will be a subject of national investigation. At the same time we must call things by their real name: there is a real threat that the aggression will spread. Namely this should become the gravitation center for our efforts today and in the future. The opinion that a way out from current situation will be found in the near future is erroneous as well. Let’s be honest, it will be a longtime process. Under these circumstances, there is still a room for active and resolute decisions. But this should be done by so-called risk takers, professionals who are able to professionally perceive the existing risks and solve complicated crisis problems. In contrast to this, the power for some reason is stubbornly following the principle of minimizing the risks of war for the sake of the presidential elections. Of course, elections are important. At the same time, this unilateral approach does not create any problems for the other side in its realization of its own aggressive strategy. On the contrary, it encourages it to use the moment of the power’s deviation from war at any cost, even by surrendering of a part of the state territory, for getting the most important piece, and under favorable auspices – getting the whole Ukraine.
In Brussels I have heard things which disagree with my understanding of the situation.
For example, when we spoke about consideration of the possibility to launch, with support of the West, a pilot project of construction of a turn-key ready residential area for our Crimean military men on the continental part of Ukraine – with up-to-date cottages and corresponding infrastructure. Although the assessment of the abovementioned proposal was basically positive, behind the scenes they noted that according to the stand taken by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, “we have many military bases which have been freed and this is not a problem at all.” We also should understand that both in Ukraine and in the West a considerable number of people view involvement of the West and NATO in this war as provocative and instigating. But, unfortunately, the threats are high, and the Russian forces are proceeding. Only Moscow knows how far they are ready to advance. Military-political indicators prove that far. Observing this and not taking any actions is a huge mistake, which will finally give a signal to Putin that we welcome all of your aggressive actions. Indisputably, there is a huge space for uniting our efforts in struggle against the aggressor. Indisputably, political solidarity is important. But for the time being, we need adequate national and international strategies, mutual activity and resoluteness, and coordinated practical steps. All this can do much for our common defense.
This is a rational way to act.
