Viktor Medvedchuk: Three conditions for detente in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict

Exclusive article by Viktor Medvedchuk, Chairman of the Council of the Other Ukraine Movement, for aif.ru.

When the head of NATO Secretary General Stian Jenssen’s office said that Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to join the Alliance and then called these words a mistake, one should not think about an accidental reservation. NATO was probing the situation and it was not Ukraine’s position that made it rewind. The alliance finds the freezing of the conflict extremely favorable, so Jenssen threw a trial balloon but Russia did not even think of responding in any way. Then the Western media went into hysterics that Russia does not want peace. And there is a clear deceit here because no one specified what kind of peace Russia does not want. The West does not want any peace either and spends billions of dollars on war. To find a way out of this situation, we need to understand what kind of peace Russia wants and what kind of peace the West wants.

The world as US hegemony

The collapse of the USSR, CMEA and Warsaw Pact gave the West three decades of lasting peace and prosperity. But it cannot be said that this applied to the rest of the countries and peoples. The USA became the world police and at any moment could start a small victorious war “in the name of democracy”. Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and Iraq tasted this “democracy” to the full. The total number of victims has long passed millions and the damage to the countries that were “democratized” with the help of weapons is estimated in the hundreds of billions.

Russia could not ignore the experience of Yugoslavia, a European country that was dismembered with the help of NATO forces and then pulled under its influence piece by piece. NATO’s movement to the east of Europe, where there is simply no other country but Russia, could not but raise fears in Moscow about its own security and territorial integrity. The West was asked questions but they were simply ignored, which multiplied the awareness of the danger.

With the help of the two Maidans, the U.S. obtained a convenient Ukrainian bridgehead for an offensive against Russia and actively began to shake Belarus in order to expand this bridgehead. In addition, problems began on the southern borders, in Kazakhstan and the situation in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan was aggravated. When Western politicians say that if Russia had amassed a large number of troops in Mexico on the border with the United States, Washington, too, would obviously be worried and would be ringing all the bells. The situation is comparable not only to Russian troops in Mexico but also to the presence of those troops in Canada, Cuba and Chukotka. Russia is simply being encircled with military bases and the neighbors are being made into anti-Russian fanatics.

And the problem here is not the Russian Federation at all. China is fueled by the problems of Taiwan and Tibet, India has a lot of difficulties on its borders, not to mention the constant tension between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the issue of security and sovereignty is not exclusively a Russian issue. The interests of many states and peoples are simply not taken into account in the system of US hegemony and statements that it is the US that brings freedom, democracy and prosperity should not be taken on faith. In their time, Hitler and Napoleon claimed the same thing but history has shown that things were quite different.

US claims that it is bringing democracy and prosperity to the world cannot be believed. In their time, Hitler and Napoleon claimed the same thing.

Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org, Gettyimages

No special prosperity after the imposition of the American “order” with weapons is usually not observed. It is observed not only in the United States and only among those who brought this “order”. Before the hostilities, Ukraine had become one of the poorest countries in Europe. And it became such not with Russia but when it refused to unite with it. Ukrainians were seduced by European integration but it was not equal at all. Absorption and subjugation can also, in principle, be called integration, only then the interests of some will be satisfied at the expense of others.

When propaganda says that Ukraine will be rebuilt at the expense of the USA and the EU, it is useful to ask: have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Serbia, and current day Sudan and Colombia? Have they already rebuilt everything there and the standard of living has risen dramatically? What prevented the West from making Ukraine a showcase of the “free world”? And if they didn’t do it for 30 years, why will they do it later?

That is why the world of hegemony of the US and its military and financial instruments does not suit many countries. It is this hegemony, ignoring the interests of other countries under the pretext that they are not democratic enough, corrupt and generally backward, that cannot but cause resistance. The US and its allies have placed themselves at the top of the “food chain” of the world economy and that is how they understand the world. That is why they invest huge funds in achieving just such a world and it is such a world that professional comedian Zelensky advertises at the behest of the USA.

Korean/German version of peace

A ceasefire and demarcation, as was the case with West and East Germany or Korea, seems like a sensible idea but such a scenario does not exhaust the causes of the conflict. Western propaganda tries to veil, obfuscate and distort these causes in every possible way. That is why Zelensky and his team constantly claim that Russia wants to physically destroy all Ukrainians, destroy their culture and language. In reality, it is Ukraine that is fighting the Russian language and culture at the state level with Nazi methods and its propaganda everywhere calls for the murder of Russians. And it is impossible to hide such things, since discriminatory laws have been adopted, Russophobic policies are being pursued and Nazi statements by Ukrainian politicians in power are pouring out in rivers.

Russia understands that since the countries that have declared themselves to be models of democracy and tolerance are turning a blind eye to this, this is exactly the behavior of Ukrainians that they need. They are creating a militant Russophobic tribe with cannibalistic tendencies out of a young European state and are actively arming it. Western curators are trying to indoctrinate Ukrainians that hatred of Russians is their national trait, their raison d’être and the basis of their identity. And this cannot be accepted by Russia in principle.

For the West, the line of demarcation means the cessation of huge expenditures on war, which is naturally attractive but there are many arguments against it. The main one is that the line of demarcation will show the limit of U.S. influence and according to the doctrine of hegemony, Russia must obey the West and no demarcation is possible.

In addition, the US and the EU will have a large part of Ukraine in their hands with which they will have to do something. If the West continues to raise anti-Russia out of the remaining Ukraine, the war will inevitably break out again and its temporary cessation will not solve anything. The only thing left is to make Ukraine a showcase of the “free world”. And where to get money for this, if billions have been spent on armaments? Where to get funds for agriculture, if Ukraine’s land is riddled with minefields and poisoned with shells containing uranium? Where to get funds for industry, if the energy system and infrastructure are destroyed by the war? And with whom will this country trade and cooperate with, if most of its territory consists of borders with Russia and Belarus, cooperation with which is equated to a crime?

The Ukrainian economic miracle in the Western version is impossible in principle. Yes, the West has already pumped Ukraine with money and resources for war but it has not achieved the desired effect. Ukraine as a battering ram for Russia, as a means of gaining control over its resources suits the West quite well. As an independent competitive economic entity, Ukraine does not suit the West in principle.

The EU is not interested in this country even as a raw material appendage because Ukrainian agricultural products undermine the economies of a number of EU countries. They do this by raw materials, such as timber and fossils are becoming increasingly depleted. Another thing is Russia, to which the resources and population of Ukraine are economically suitable, does not want to give it all away, because objectively the West is interested not in the restoration of the country. Instead, in its destruction according to the principle “So don’t get you to anyone”. In this regard, the risks of accidents at nuclear power plants and other environmental disasters are great. The accident at the Kakhovka dam has seriously helped to reduce the export potential of Ukrainian agricultural products. Most likely, this is just the beginning.

Based on the interests of national security, Russia cannot afford to have a fanatical sub-state living in war and hatred of Russians at its side. Naturally, a simple ceasefire does not solve the main cause of the conflict, the complete disregard for Russia’s security interests and sovereignty. Any delimitation, for example, as it was in the case of Germany and then in Korea, relied on mutual recognition of interests, otherwise no delimitation would be possible. Therefore, if there is no recognition of Russia’s interests, the Korean option is impossible in principle. We can only talk about it theoretically.

Three conditions of discharge

As we can see, peaceful settlement is impossible without political understanding of the processes and causes that led to the military conflict. Comprehension alone is not enough, it is necessary to change the system of relations in modern international politics and this is not so easy but it is possible.

The first condition is to recognize both the interests and sovereignty of countries that are not part of the West. Russia, like any other country, must have guarantees that it will not be subjected to military intervention “exporting democracy” by the West. Without these guarantees, any country can be declared aggressive, backward, corrupt and undemocratic, which would ostensibly provide justification for military intervention.

The Ukrainian conflict arose on the basis of complete disregard for any interests of Russia, which was emphasized both by the behavior of Western countries and the state ideology of Ukraine, which turned it into an Anti-Russia. The West simply needs to recognize that there are other countries where life is not according to their rules and these countries also have their own interests.

In the West, there are politicians who can play by such rules but they become objects of harassment, such as Trump in the United States. So this is not just about the Ukrainian conflict but about broader processes. The world cannot, does not want and should not submit to the military cudgel of NATO countries. A small group of countries cannot make decisions for the rest of the world.

The second and important condition is the priority of human lives over any political interests. Ukraine has long ago become a state where human life, the rights of a citizen and his opinion are of no importance. And when Western politicians call it democracy, it raises questions about what they mean by democracy at all. Moreover, Ukraine is being pumped with weapons that kill more and more people, both military and civilian. But at the same time, practically nothing is being done to stop the daily loss of life.

People should not be killed, even if it seems to some that they have the wrong beliefs and have made the wrong choice. Today, the Ukrainian authorities say that their political opponents should be killed or at best go to prison or a concentration camp and the official West generally encourages this. Thus, the West betrays in practice the values that it is very proud of and that supposedly set it apart from the rest of the world.

Zelensky has proved by his political course that he is simply not interested in the death and deprivation of a huge number of Ukrainian citizens. He sets ambitious military and political goals for the country, for which the official West not only pats him on the head. They also generously supply him with weapons and money and the lives of Ukrainian citizens are expendable in this game. There is no room for negotiations in such a cannibalistic system, as Zelensky honestly states.

But it is not about him but about the general system of values. When people started dying on the Maidan in Kiev in 2014, the West declared it not a tragedy but a triumph of democracy. Thus, violence, murder and lawlessness were becoming a tradition in Ukrainian politics. But the West decided that since it was all in favor of their interests, they could turn a blind eye to it all.

Therefore, negotiations are possible only with those politicians who believe that in this conflict it is necessary first of all to save people from death and the world from total war. It is clearly seen that Zelensky and his entourage are not among such politicians.

The West understands this very well. Otherwise, why are all these talks about Ukrainian corruption and the need for elections being initiated? Zelensky obviously wants to be put in his place, or even changed but this will not solve the problem of the conflict. If the Ukrainian state lives by this conflict and has no other income, then no matter who is put at the head of this state, there will be no change.

The third condition for détente is the realization that the world has long ago reached a dangerous line and it is necessary to build a new security system. The current one is no longer working. Today, the West wants to regain its dominance with the help of “miracle weapons” that are being handed over to Ukraine. It is well seen that today no weapon solves not only the problems of world security but even tactical problems on the battlefield.

Here we need to decide what is more important; sales and advertising of Western weapons or international security. Today, the Ukrainian conflict looks like an advertisement for Western arms. Everyone is waiting for Ukraine to receive some kind of ammunition that will help it achieve its goals. There is all kinds of advertising and praise of these weapons but then it turns out that this is not enough. Thus, the advertising of the following types of military equipment begins.

All of this benefits the Western military-industrial complex, generates income for arms dealers and collapses the system of international security. After all, the more dangerous weapons are used, the more people will die and the consequences will be catastrophic. These trends have already collapsed the international security system. Because most Western politicians do not want to bear the responsibility for the consequences of military action. They naively hope to shift it to Russia for which they are running the political propaganda machine.

But there is a serious flaw in this scenario. If military success is not achieved, there will be no escape from responsibility. Those who don’t believe it should look at Zelensky’s recent statements. Until recently, he reported every day about the imminent victory but recently he has sharply deflated his ambitions and began to accuse the West of insufficient assistance. Simply put, he started biting the hand that feeds him.

So, it will not be possible to win by means of arms race, increasing production of shells and military equipment. Russia has something to answer to this and a lot of countries will secretly or explicitly help it in this, because they realize that they are not immune to the “export of democracy” of the West.

On the other hand, Zelensky has nothing to say to the peace proposals; he has “broken the record”, because he has become a hostage of his deception of Ukrainians, calling white black and black white. As a result, he failed to achieve a “re-moga” neither on the front, nor in the realization of the peace formula. However, the authorities turned his ambitious wishes into postulates, “articles of the Constitution”, forbidding the society to question them. At the same time, a situation has developed where, for fear of reprisals, no voices against them are heard. At the same time, there are no voices in favor of these proposals, excluding the peripheral clique and the state-owned media. If the West sells out the elections anyway, then perhaps the people, as the source of power, should be asked for their opinion on the correctness of the chosen policy, rather than having it decided for them until there are no living citizens in the country at all. Today, none of the still banned parties is in a position to ask Ukrainians whether they want new victims, blindly following the president’s orders or whether they want to find a path to peace and save the lives of innocent people.

Then we need to create conditions for common security, not just for NATO member states or other military alliances. And for this purpose, the landscape of world politics needs to be renewed. In the current situation, it makes no practical or even theoretical sense to discuss negotiations with Ukraine without linking them to the new architecture of international security (by the way, in December 2021, Moscow sought a substantive dialog with the U.S. and NATO on this issue). The time is coming for leaders, diplomats and managers who will throw the old system of regulation to the dustbin of history. Today, this is precisely the challenge that must be met.