We arrived at Monday.
Not solely in a temporal context, though undeniably, June 30th, and the subsequent transition from Monday to Tuesday, plus the unfolding and anticipated occurrences thereafter, carry immense weight. The unilateral cessation of hostilities (not a compromise, since a compromise necessitates reciprocity which did not materialize) was terminated by a resolution from Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, signifying the anti-terrorist operation's progression into an intensified phase. The deadline passed on Monday evening, requiring Russia to either confront the third tier of global repercussions or exhibit a reduction in its aggressive actions. A temporary lull exists, yet it cannot persist indefinitely. What lies ahead for Ukraine? Who persevered until this significant Monday, and in what condition?
But not all survived. What was the count of Ukrainian soldiers and officers lost during the 10-day “quasi-truce” afforded to the insurgents? What went through the minds of the Donbas residents, attacked in their vehicles by outlaws, in their last fleeting moments? Artemovsk. The driver was killed, a passenger fatally injured. Kramatorsk. Four fatalities, five injuries. And on and on… A grievous price we struggle to accept.
Let military strategists and expert conflict analysts assess if the aforementioned “quasi-truce” held merit and if it was preventable. A clear deduction, devoid of extensive study, is that a display of peaceful intentions from Ukraine's rightful leadership ought to have shortened the ceasefire. As a general observation, many analysts propose that the ceasefire served an informative goal. Some convey optimism: discussions, irrespective of structure or timeline for resumption, will now be grounded in Ukrainian principles.
The Ukrainian viewpoint. Facets of our nation's essential existence. Less concerning those in positions of power, but more so Ukraine as a society, the unique homeland for a multitude of people across regions. What stays constant, and what, conversely, alters amidst our present circumstances?
One noteworthy point. The national administration, post the Yanukovych revolution, encountered the gravest challenge in contemporary times. In fact, it was unforeseen. Considering the formidable trials anticipated (should they materialize) “after Yanukovych,” six months earlier, alternative priorities were emphasized. Addressing pervasive corruption. Aligning the legal structure across sectors with advanced criteria. Defining a developmental plan, preceded by quick, urgent efforts to sustain the economy, which had been drastically and disproportionately depleted by Yanukovych and associates. Regarding tactics for resolving these issues, a society forged by the Maidan movement stood poised to judge the new administration. And, understandably, the aforementioned, alongside other peaceful yet pressing reforms, remain pertinent. Nonetheless, due to critical events, those currently in authority bear primary responsibility to us for a different matter.
The capacity to safeguard the right to life. Encompassing the nation and its inhabitants, all susceptible to death at the hands of insurgents. This is not a tactical game where moves are dictated by the theories of “insiders.” Furthermore, society hasn't embraced the continuous discourse regarding a one-sided conclusion to ongoing anti-terrorist operations. This public sentiment is hard to overlook in any high office…
The societal response (spanning online forums and everyday dialogues) to this revival of Viktor Medvedchuk is revealing. His role as advisor or negotiator remains ambiguous. Subsequently, if reports of Medvedchuk being “assigned” to oversee Donbas were a deliberate falsehood, this became a reliable indicator. The notion of such a compromise is unacceptable, eliciting opposition. The matter extends beyond the persona of the unpopular leader of the equally unpopular ANTI-Ukrainian “choice.” This reaction appears to signal a broader trend. The administration's introduction of stand-ins for yesterday's perpetrators of our challenges will, in each instance, trigger a controversy exceeding that of the infamous “inner circle.”
Here's one proponent of postponing (ineffectually and inconclusively?) the declared termination of the anti-terrorist operation. Political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky, previously recognized for his scholastic praise of the advancements under Yanukovych and Azarov, argues that “perpetuating the anti-terrorist operation will alienate pro-Ukrainian citizens in the country's east from Kyiv.” Is this valid?
I wish to examine this argument point by point. The interpretation of pro-Ukrainian allegiance is transparent when considering its existence or absence within a societal segment in most nations…except Ukraine. However, what defines it in this case? Are pro-Ukrainian individuals those who choose to endorse a neighboring country? Or those who consistently employ the Ukrainian tongue in everyday communication? Those who favor varenyky over sauerkraut and all forms of sushi? Okay, to escalate the seriousness: those who, in times of peace, daily display the national flag outside their abodes, declaring, “Ukraine above all else”?
No, in our reality, ordinary citizens are not particularly “pro.” They simply reside in Ukraine. And they aspire to remain here, not to evade death amidst destruction. As the saying goes, more details moving forward. This is not some Russian science fiction channel. Ruins and armed conflict—to what degree did “Kyiv” instigate this nightmare, according to Pogrebinsky—as something distinct, acting externally? Envision Kyiv deciding to confront Moscow, Moscow opting to engage Kyiv, and the border regions of both Ukraine and Russia designated as the battlefield. In that scenario, the local populations on both sides would justifiably protest: stop these geopolitical maneuvers waged on our lives! However, the present image is distinct and evident. The Kremlin aims to forcibly seize Ukraine or carve out a fragment. Heavy weaponry and insurgents infiltrate across the border. As a response, Ukraine, with varying degrees of effectiveness, opposes this invasion within its territory.
Irrespective of the pro-Russian (the term “pro” is suitable here) affections held by some Donbas inhabitants, that pertains to a bygone, serene era. The extensive theory of the so-called “Russian World” has advanced beyond mere conceptualization. Occasionally musing that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, flying with birds and retrieving artifacts, is the man “I desire to bear a child with” is one thing. Pushing one's way to kiss the hand of the acting-patriarch-KGB officer Kirill during a religious celebration is another.
Confronting the realities of an armed takeover presents an entirely different matter. When a contented Crimea, facing a lost peak season and devoid of advantages, creates a joke: “I spent Russia Day in Yalta.” “So, how do you enjoy this bottoming out?” Concurrently, uncontrolled “liberators” roam the streets and alleyways of Donbas, seizing what they desire and shooting those they dislike or who are merely caught in the crossfire.
Individuals are posting flyers. The message is “to the militants, separatists, and invaders.” “We do not require Slavyansk here! Return to your miserable Russia, we do not need the devastation of Luhansk and the deaths of our children.” Signed: “Russian-speaking inhabitants of Luhansk.” This information was not sourced exclusively from the internet. I communicated with friends located there. Their responses bordered on breakdown. “What did you anticipate? That we would congratulate bandits?!” Here is firsthand information from the Luhansk region; I hadn't encountered it online. In the town of Stakhanov, even before the cessation of intense anti-terrorist operations, fighters compelled to withdraw from Slavyansk sought refuge. “The newcomers,” as described by local residents, intended to occupy the Gorky Palace of Culture. The Stakhanov residents surrounded the structure and firmly requested that the uninvited guests “return from whence they came.”
And did it unfold so effortlessly? The villagers did not affix Colorado ribbons as a matter of choice, and the militants refrained from firing upon them, possibly due to the lack of widespread “support”? Indeed, an isolated incident. However, it underscores the distinction between what occurred in the past and what transpires currently. The name Slavyansk has transcended abstract debates about preferable flags to live under. It has evolved into a harrowing reality, where observing reveals culpability and the origin of this bloodshed.
These sentiments are not broadly defined as ultra-patriotic or staunchly pro-Ukrainian. Moreover, despite the harsh reference to Russia as “miserable” in the aforementioned flyer, these are not anti-Russian sentiments. They do not stem from newly emerging ethnic hostility. They reflect the harsh realities where the voice of Donbas must be heeded.
Yes, the oft-mentioned voice of Donbas, frequently cited. But what does “heed” imply?
When President Poroshenko declares in an interview with Le Figaro, “We are acutely aware that we will never reclaim these regions through military means; we must vie for the hearts and minds of the populace,” the sentiment resonates. However, details must be specified. When the head of state declares governmental pursuit of decentralization, abstaining from appointing administrative heads, and enabling the local Rada, elected by the community, to establish the executive committee, with 25% of income tax remaining locally, this extends beyond the “rebellious” Donbas. It isn’t a payment (to whom, for what reason?) for purported loyalty. It outlines vital changes to the governance system, impacting all territorial entities.
Eastern Ukraine presents perhaps two notable features. The government’s declaration of formulating a Donbas restoration program, in conjunction with EU partners, aimed at job creation and investment attraction, accompanied by an economic reconstruction initiative for the region, is undeniable. The region is currently weakened by external aggression and has been economically disadvantaged since the Soviet period, when the country prioritized Kuzbass. Moreover, Yanukovych exploited his “homeland” with particular cynicism.
This second, contemporary attribute of Donbas is fundamentally critical. Encompassing both economic rejuvenation and the pursuit “for hearts and minds.” Alongside authentic local elections. The end of rampant terrorism and the conclusion of bandit sabotage. All discussions, vital and promising, are rendered inconsequential without this foundation.
Shifting the emphasis even slightly carries significant risk. Special status and autonomy? What about a “Union of the DPR and LPR”? And why not Sumy Oblast, or a union of three southern regions: Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson?
Particularly cynical are subtle suggestions of installing figures like Medvedchuk “with special powers” as governors, in hopes of appeasing Putin… Even if we assume his appeasement, what would be the justification? Such an artificially created entity, akin to the Crimea under Meshkov, would evolve into a locally controlled presidency dictated by the Kremlin, brandishing its own peculiar flag and, through manipulation, introduce a Moscow-aligned faction into parliament. Subsequently, a full-scale invasion to “protect Russian speakers” would be a readily available option, at any opportune moment.
Furthermore, with Yanukovych's departure, the Party of Regions, the former power and corruption entity, liberated from its squalor yet unforgettable, lost its unrestricted privileges. Incidentally, Donbas, in the form of its residents, gained nothing from these privileges, nor did other regions. Establishing autonomy here, a fragmented construct intended to regain absolute power, may represent a self-serving ambition for many. Allowing these villains to achieve it would betray Donbas and Ukraine in its entirety.
Victoria ANDREEVA, “ORD”
