Russia: From Aggressor to Mediator; From Foe to Friend

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s backtracking this week on Ukraine’s official recognition of Russia as the aggressor is a cataclysmic decision by the leadership of a country that has greatly suffered for more than six years under Moscow’s guns that will have precipitous consequences on Kyiv’s relations with the Kremlin and the free world.

First of all, smug-faced Putin and his junta will now feel their oats as they celebrate the fulfillment of their goal of returning Ukraine to Moscow’s diabolical prison of nations thus lowering the infamous iron curtain. After all, Ukraine had resisted the Kremlin’s efforts to have Kyiv tone down its global protests about Russia’s invasion of two oblasts in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. And now Zelenskyy has removed the label of aggressor from Russia’s back.

The immoral agreement undermines Ukrainian statehood, independence and sovereignty.

According to published reports, Ukrainian officials have agreed to begin direct talks with representatives of Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine, marking a substantial policy departure after six years of refusing to enter into direct dialogue with the Kremlin-supported terrorists of the illegally seized Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In other words, Kyiv acknowledges that the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk republics are legitimate leaders of their lands. They are in reality merely disenchanted Ukrainians who wanted to secede from Kyiv rather than Russia’s mercenaries, armed and commanded by Russia and supported by tens of thousands of Russian troops, sent to subvert Ukrainians in those oblasts.

The agreement was signed in Minsk on March 11 by representatives of the so-called Trilateral Contact Group, which consists of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE. Preliminary plans foresee the formation of a new Advisory Council that will feature 10 Ukrainian officials and 10 representatives from the occupied oblasts. Russia, which has the most to gain from Ukraine’s surrender or even submission to its designs, will reportedly participate in the process as an international observer – a friendly participant – rather than as an aggressor and supplier of arms to its militant mercenaries, and will have the same supervisory status as France, Germany, and the OSCE.

Imagine giving the criminal or perpetrator the right to mediate a trial in which it is the defendant. Moscow, the invader, will be a referee in its war against Ukraine. Sounds strange but stranger still considering that Zelenskyy’s representatives agreed with this.

The specified aim of this new Advisory Council is to facilitate dialogue toward the political resolution of the war in eastern Ukraine, with an emphasis on preparing the ground for planned local elections. The bogus concept of a political conclusion of the war and holding of local elections will seal the Ukrainian border for scores of years in favor of Russia.

Throughout the past six years of war between the two countries, Russia constantly demanded that Ukraine to begin direct talks with its militants. However, prior to Zelenskyy’s latest strategic political meltdown, Ukraine had consistently refused to deal directly with separatist officials. For better or worse, Kyiv’s policy had been to engage exclusively with Russia, the aggressor, in order to avoid any contacts that might be seen as legitimizing Moscow’s mercenary terrorists in eastern Ukraine or lessening Russian responsibility for the conflict as the aggressor state.

This situation cannot serve as the foundation for any discussion about the future of the Russian occupied regions of Ukraine. At best, only Russian total and unconditional withdrawal of Ukraine can lead to regional peace, development and security.

News of the plans for a joint Advisory Council sparked widespread unrest in Ukraine. The national motto of “No to Capitulation” that sparked an ideology and movement has taken on greater meaning and urgency. Opponents of any submission to Russia, especially when its army is on Ukrainian land, believe that Zelenskyy is surrounded by ministers and advisors that are beholden to Putin.

According to published reports, on March 13, in a statement the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union warned that the March 11 decision carries the risk that inadmissible red lines that Zelenskyy had pledged never to cross will be crossed. The signatories emphasized that “the Russian Federation, which is the initiator and aggressor in this armed conflict, virtually always has the deciding voice in taking decisions on releasing people imprisoned on non-government-controlled territory. However, it must bear responsibility for the consequences of its aggression. Taking Russia away from the negotiating table as a party to the conflict and giving it status of observer, as seen in Item 2 of the document published, is a worrying trend toward trying to waive Russia’s liability for its aggression.”

Any legitimization of the illegal formations known as the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” or negotiations with such formations about waiving liability for grave crimes committed during the establishment of the so-called “republics” would cross a red line and be totally inadmissible.

Halya Coynash of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group wrote that civic activists, political analysts and even 50 members of the Ukrainian parliament from the party associated with Zelenskyy warned that the agreement signed by, among others, the head of the President’s Administration, Andriy Yermak, would cross that proverbial red line. Coynash further indicated that the document envisages the formation of an advisory council with representatives from Ukraine, from the Russian mercenary leadership. “Russia would have only ‘observer’ status, with this effectively likening the aggressor state to the OSCE, Germany and France.  Although the ‘council’ would draw up proposals on, for example, highly contentious constitutional amendments that Russia is seeking and local elections in occupied Donbas, any decisions would be of an advisory nature, and not binding,” she pointed out. 

Zelenskyy’s national popularity has been declining since his landslide victory last spring which also has contributed to his electorate’s questioning their decision to elect him at all.

Olena Zerkal, former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister in 2014-19, said “Ever since 2014, Russia has gradually sought to impose its own logic onto the conflict guided by two key principles: ‘we are not there’ and ‘catch us if you can.” These two narratives closely intertwine and cannot be addressed separately. Despite all their legal gymnastics and reliance on plausible deniability, we managed to prove that Russia is the aggressor. We demonstrated direct military engagement between the Russian armed forces and those of Ukraine, and confirmed the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from July 14, 2014, at the latest.”

Up until last week the Ukrainian government has been consistent in its condemnation of Russia as the aggressor and instigator of a war with Ukraine launched two weeks after the closing of the 2014 Winter Olympics. In January 2018, the Verkhovna Rada passed a law defining areas seized by pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country as temporarily occupied by Russia. A designation that has reverberated around the world by many countries and groups. At the time, the law on the reintegration of the region was backed by 280 MPs, calling Russia an aggressor state. “The Russian Federation is committing a crime of aggression against Ukraine and is temporarily occupying parts of its territory,” the document says. It accuses Moscow of sending its army into the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and not adhering to any ceasefire regimes. Numerous Ukrainian soldiers have been killed by Russian invaders during many proclaimed truces.

Even Zelenskyy himself called Russia the aggressor on May 23, 2019, when he commented on the e-government website that Ukraine is losing to “the aggressor.”

Will the real Zelenskyy and Ukraine please stand up? This radical change of heart will also affect Ukraine’s relations with the United States, the former captive nations and other free world countries, and regional and global institutions that have echoed the undeniable position that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine the victim. It is unknown how, in the United States, congressmen and senators will react to this contrary affirmation by the victim.

You may recall, that the United Nations, an institution that does not readily censure a member-state as powerful as Moscow, also had officially denounced Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as an “occupier” of foreign lands just like Nazi Germany and other tyrannical empires were – my clarification. An occupier of foreign lands means it crossed a foreign border which means it’s an aggressor.

The 71st General Assembly adopted on Monday, December 19, 2016, a resolution on human rights in Crimea, titled “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),” which was initiated by Ukraine and supported by the UNGA Third Committee. Seventy-three UN member-states, including Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others backed the document, 76 abstained, and Russia plus 22 others voted against it.

The resolution cited four times the word “occupier” in relation to Russia’s enslavement of Crimea.

Most importantly, the resolution condemned “the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine —the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation.” It also notably reaffirmed its “non-recognition” of Russia’s unlawful annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea after a fabricated and rigged referendum.

Will the United Nations concur with future Kyiv and free world efforts in the future?

With so much public, on the record recognition of Russia’s crimes against Ukraine and disruption of the world order, why did President Zelenskyy decide to listen to Putin and switch horses a year after being elected thereby ridiculing himself and the country? His move belittles the deaths of more than 14,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers killed by Russian invaders.

The world was on board with the policy of recognizing Russian aggression against Ukraine and acknowledged what Russia has been doing in recent years. It accepted Ukraine’s position that the green men in Crimea and foreign invaders in eastern Ukraine are Russian soldiers. Will it treat Ukraine seriously going forward?

It is axiomatic that you can’t win a war if you deny that it is being waged by an enemy or aggressor against your nation. Has Zelenskyy condemned Ukraine and the Ukrainian nation to another hundred years of Russian subjugation, persecution, russification and bloodshed by willfully denying Russian aggression? Do you recall the story about the boy who cried wolf?