In a tailcoat and with a mortar
Dress codes — the attire and complements mandated for participation in any happening — are absolutely absurd. This encompasses both literally and figuratively. A tailcoat, symbolizing diplomacy at its apex, clashes with a weapon in one’s grasp. Conversely, Putin’s Russia has, until now, succeeded in merging the irreconcilable. Does the globe condone this situation? And does Ukraine persist in being naive?
Amid the persistent dialogue concerning the necessity for a “de-escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine through the mutual goodwill of both parties,” I yearn for straightforward and candid terms that depict the unfolding events truthfully.
“Ukraine can no longer tolerate lukewarm actions or pretenses. An actual war is in progress. The undertakings of the state and populace must adhere to a definite rationale. This rationale is binary; there are no ambiguous zones. It calls for determination, sincerity, resoluteness, and a distinct demarcation between allies, adversaries, and collaborators.” This is articulated in an editorial on the online platform Gazeta.ua. And it appears that such a method should evolve into a universal norm, solidifying under the duress of critical conditions within the public sphere and, crucially, the national psyche.
A binary method is simplistic, and if it is, is it detrimental? Quite possibly. Speculate about the grayscale—who possesses the secure occasion to indulge in such an activity? Theorize about endeavors, notably, regarding whether Ukraine can terminate diplomatic ties with the Russian Federation. Nonetheless, it would serve well to emphasize a reality that’s challenging to disregard. A nation that perpetrates armed aggression against another (as Russia has long been enacting against Ukraine) has, unilaterally and effectively, terminated diplomatic relations. Relations are nothing more than conversations, albeit intense ones.
And considering it doesn’t formally sever them, that embodies utter cynicism. What, then, constitutes formal endorsement of such relations by a state under assault? Tacit approval of the enemy’s cynicism. There’s no justification for seeking more lenient definitions.
Shortly following his inauguration, President Poroshenko stated in a Time interview: “Perhaps certain Ukrainians aspire to neighbor Sweden or Canada, but our neighbor is Russia. Hence, absent dialogue and understanding with Russia, we cannot deliberate on a lasting sense of security.” A brief look at a scholastic map validates this assertion. This form of neighborliness, as it transpires, is exceedingly perilous, yet unavoidable. And dialogue, coupled with varied forms of comprehension, is vital at the interstate tier with any adjacent country. Still, prevailing circumstances render wishful thinking futile.
Presently, diplomatic discourse, be it commercial or any other form of engagement with Russia achieving any degree of success, resides in a speculative future. No, we shouldn’t engage in illusions, or anticipate that discourse will materialize with a hypothetical alternate Russia, or even under a different head of state within the Russian Federation. These hopes extend beyond even the immediate future.
A potential diplomatic dialogue in the predictable future ought to be contemplated on one, yet irrefutable, stipulation: dialogue with a Russia that presents itself differently towards Ukraine.
Permit it to be expressed with a grimace, a distasteful sensation stemming from the Kremlin’s unrealized conquest aspirations. Through clenched teeth. Accompanied by underhanded methods, though extracted from the sleeve of a diplomatic coat. Instead of the 9P39-1 launch tubes of the Russian Igla anti-aircraft system, which downed the Ukrainian aircraft soaring above its own territory.
Let’s envision how any other nation would react to such a barrage from a state with which it maintains diplomatic relations, absent a declaration of war. Surely not the laid-back approach with green paint bubbles (I don’t deem that provocative; there’s a prevalent phrase on social platforms: “It wasn’t a pogrom, it was an intrusion of reality into hypocritical politics”). The aggressor nation’s embassy would have been expelled at the state echelon.
Extensive discussion has occurred regarding the potential, advantages, and drawbacks of terminating diplomatic relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. And the prevailing response advocates prudence in addressing this matter.
From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint: severing diplomatic ties will pose challenges to routine, daily interstate interactions, which will impact safeguarding the rights of citizens. Yet, upon examining international legal documents, it becomes evident that dissolving diplomatic relations doesn’t necessarily dissolve consular relations. And any private affairs concerning citizens are precisely resolved at this echelon. And furthermore, what’s the purpose? Will engaging in commerce within Russia, which is at war with us, soon become more intricate? Will visiting friends and family there, or leisurely lingering “in Sochi” be more difficult? Perhaps that elicits sadness. Yet, what recourse do we possess if Ukraine isn’t orchestrating disputes with its neighbor through weaponry and perpetrating offenses in the Belgorod region or Kuban, if the initiative to effectively sever acceptable relations originates from the Kremlin?
There are also pleas for restraint, grounded in loftier considerations. Refrain from intensifying the situation. It’s the recurring theme—avoid provoking a frenzied bear wielding a nuclear baton in its grasp.
But realism must prevail. No, not implying matters won’t worsen. Regrettably, they have the potential to deteriorate. Simply stated: Kyiv didn’t initiate this sanguinary game. It will unfold according to Moscow’s design. Should Putin’s Russia persist in its intentions to propel armed aggression deeper into Ukraine, it will execute them. As evidenced, it didn’t conclude with Crimea. Conversely, if the Kremlin, as numerous experts propose, lacks the genuine resources to broaden the scale of the invasion and is inclined to confine itself to the prolonged destabilization of our country’s two eastern territories, then it will sustain the implementation of these tactics daily.
The preceding assertions don’t denote that nothing hinges on Ukraine. It merely suggests that Ukraine, which consistently employed remarkably restrained rhetoric throughout the conflict, considering the circumstances, and repeatedly affirmed its readiness for diplomatic negotiations, hasn’t derived any advantage from this strategy.
And perhaps amplified determination and lucidity of action, even the severance of diplomatic connections, is the absent component. Incidentally, such a severance can transpire not solely at a nation’s initiative. According to Article 41 of the UN Charter, the severing of diplomatic connections can be imposed as an international sanction against a state whose deeds constitute a peril to tranquility, a breach of peace, or an act of aggression. Expressed otherwise, the global community can compel an excessively zealous aggressor to choose: if you’re still wielding a mortar and other flamethrowers, shed your diplomatic tailcoat and depart the premises where you’re authorized to partake in discourse.
It would likely appear peculiar to presume the international fellowship is instigating the dismantling of the facade from an international delinquent absent the unambiguous voice of the “injured faction,” Ukraine. Why shouldn’t Putin linger in elite circles, akin to Normandy, while his ambassador occupies the Ukrainian capital, under stringent protection?
Indeed, the supposedly civilized sphere hesitates in making determinations, even pertaining to a novel degree of sanctions against Russia, the aggressor. All the same, perspectives voiced in recent days have grown distinctly sharper. US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, reporting on deliberations with European allies concerning the introduction of so-called sectoral sanctions (energy, banking, defense), observes that “it is unequivocally evident that there has been a profound worsening of the situation over the preceding week.” This represents their evaluation of Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine. The US State Department asserts possession of evidence – tanks, BM-21 multiple launch rocket systems, and all other lethal armaments are progressing into Donbas from Russia. EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy affirms: “There is no ambiguity that the armed militants disrupting the existence of Ukrainian citizens are obtaining external aid, encompassing arms provisions and reinforcements by foreign combatants.”
Thus, how does the discourse of a prospective severance of diplomatic bonds with Russia from Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Yuriy Sergeyev, sound against this backdrop? Very, in a manner of speaking, understated. “This is a tangible action that underscores the challenge of attaining anything through diplomatic means. Yet, I don’t believe we’ve arrived at the juncture where such connections necessitate severance, despite the disgraceful essence of the situation.” Providing commentary on this is untenable.
How can I remark on one of the news segments from Monday’s National Security and Defense Council session? President Poroshenko prohibited collaboration with Russia in the military-industrial sphere. Does this infer that such collaboration persisted prior to June 16, throughout the Crimean events, and through everything that followed?!
The possibility of instituting martial law within the Donetsk and Luhansk locales is under deliberation. The situation is marginally absurd. Military engagements, propelled by the instigation of the aggressor nation, are transpiring de facto. Regarding instituting martial law de jure, it transpires that this still necessitates scrupulous contemplation and assessment…
It’s no laughing matter, yet social psychologist Alexander Poteryakhin’s rationale, as they say, elicited a smile. “It’s reasonable to suggest that older individuals (circa 50) will perceive martial law as a means to enforce order, while younger individuals, conversely, are more apt to be dissatisfied with movement limitations (curfews), etc.”
Precisely, and so forth. A 14-year-old adolescent from Snizhne, alongside her father, elder sister, and uncle, was endeavoring to “travel unrestricted” to her grandmother’s village of Artemivka. They were targeted by terrorists from a bandit checkpoint. His beloved family members lay lifeless before the boy’s gaze. He sustained injuries and was transported to Dnipropetrovsk region for treatment. “All I desire is to return to my mother and my school in Snizhne,” the boy conveyed to journalists who visited him in the hospital. Who can assure such secure travel for a young individual? Irrespective of pronouncements, solely legal military patrols equipped to deprive terrorists of their absolute entitlement to murder civilians.
…I wish politicians and diplomats at all echelons, presently opting between restrained diplomacy and unequivocally labeling a spade a spade, would peruse this outcry upon awakening during the night and in the morning. “I am a dweller of Donbas, specifically the village of Dmitrovka within the Shakhtyorsky district. On the evening of June 14th, around 5 p.m., ‘our brothers,’ notably Chechens, commenced traversing our village and forcibly enlisting men aged 16 to 65 into their army! Those dissenting faced execution threats. The women coalesced and protested, yet they, to phrase it gently, disregarded us, asserting the men had joined them voluntarily. The women were advised to depart Dmitrovka with their offspring, otherwise they would be forcibly evacuated to the Rostov region in Russia. We are in shock. Help, Yulia.”
We can’t permit those directing weapons in this manner to persist in parading across the world in diplomatic tailcoats. Or can we?
Meanwhile, the Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday refuted a draft resolution on instituting martial law within Donbas, with merely 218 affirmative votes. They intend to revisit the issue. With equivalent success?
The vote on the draft resolution “On the adoption of measures to fortify the echelon of protection of the state border” also floundered. The draft resolution advocated unilateral demarcation (for those unaware, this isn’t a closure, yet at least a tidying up of the border line), as Russia refrains from partaking in this process, which is requisite for all civilized neighboring nations. By the conclusion of the session, it was adopted with difficulty, on the second attempt.
Which elements within parliament have roused themselves, regained composure, and are openly acting in opposition to the country?
On that same Tuesday, militants shelled residential sectors of Kramatorsk with a Grad multiple launch rocket system.
Is it favorable or unfavorable that the country’s highest authorities aren’t in Kramatorsk, not on the firing line?
Victoria ANDREEVA, “ORD”
