Three years ago, in Ukraine, I was awoken at 4:45 am by a frightening noise unlike anything I had ever heard. I stared into the darkness behind the window and told myself: it’s not true, it’s not a war, it’s just military exercises. Yet the nightmare of Russia’s full-scale military invasion was real and continues to this day. Since then, Ukrainians have been standing, fighting, and defending themselves, resisting not only Russia but also prophesies of disaster and efforts to undermine support for Kyiv. Despite this, the Ukrainian army still stands and it holds the key to the future.
Do Small States Have Agency?
As the war enters its fourth year, questions remain about why Russia and Ukraine are treated so differently by the international community. Why has Russia, a country that aspires to be a leading power in the international system, been allowed to violate the UN Charter and the international law with impunity? When did the rule of “might is right” become tolerable to the international community? How did it become acceptable to the European community? Why has Russia been given the right to decide the choices and fates of other countries? Why has political discourse been shaped by the idea that “Ukraine violated Russia’s red lines”? The only red line that exists—and should have never been crossed—is the official border of Ukraine, recognized by Russia in a “Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian-Russian State Border”. Yet debate is still shaped by the idea that Moscow is justified by its “legitimate security interests”? Does Ukraine not have legitimate security interests?
The Ukrainian answer to these questions is given every day on the battlefield. Since 2021, President Zelenskyy has appealed to the international community to uphold existing international law guaranteeing the same rights to each and all sovereign states. In 2022, at the Munich Security Conference, a few days prior to the Russian attack, Volodymyr Zelenskyy underlined: “These are not noble gestures for which Ukraine should bow low. This is your contribution to the security of Europe and the world. Where Ukraine has been a reliable shield for eight years. And for eight years it has been rebuffing one of the world’s biggest armies. Which stands along our borders, not the borders of the EU.”
Three years later, the same inability to give clear and precise answers to the above questions has brought the European community to a reality in which President Trump does not see Europeans as an equal and necessary partner at the prospective peace negotiations—while claiming to teach Europeans how to practice democracy.
“Make Russia Great Again”
The election of Donald Trump may not have been a complete surprise to the political elites of Ukraine, but Kyiv certainly lacks a strategy towards Washington under the condition of the victory of the Republican candidate. Nor can Zelenskyy’s team brag about good relationships with Trump’s team. During the whole election period it was apparent that Kyiv tended to support the democratic party, though officially remaining neutral. However, conflict emerged when, during Zelenskyy’s US visit, he visited the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, which was viewed as indirect support to the Biden team.
The Ukrainian position might be partially explained by the official announcements of Donald Trump, who based his electoral campaign largely on empty talk about how the situation between Russia and Ukraine might develop under the conditions of his second term. Trump extends his negative attitude towards Biden to all the latter’s decisions, especially those regarding Ukraine. Both Trump and Elon Musk have personally made numerous accusations against Volodymyr Zelenskyy that closely reproduce Russian propaganda narratives. Further, JD Vance has declared that he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine. Instead of clarifying his policy towards Ukraine, Trump promised to end the war in 24 hours. When this wish didn’t come true, he began referring frequently to Moscow, praising Vladimir Putin and advocating for his active participation to end the war. Indeed, Trump persistently acts as if the war was initiated by both countries and not Russia invading Ukraine on obviously false pretexts.
Yet Ukraine is defending itself, not waging an offensive war. Moscow, on the other hand, can easily end the war by withdrawing its troops. This is something President Trump has refused to recognize, shifting the focus from Russia’s illegal aggression on the fact that people die. In this regard, Trump is playing Moscow’s cards. All other initiatives about “the deal to be concluded” or an offer to Ukraine regarding its rare earth minerals are viewed in Ukraine as an attempt at betrayal. Ideas about returning Moscow to G-7, lifting the sanctions, and giving it a right to decide about Ukraine’s fate only serve Russian interests in being welcomed back as a great state in the international arena.
Cease-Fire and Peace Talks
President Zelenskyy, being in possession of comprehensive information about Russia and its intentions, declared that Moscow intends to use any kind of truce to strengthen its military potential to continue the invasion. Next time, Ukraine may not be the only victim. Analysing a range of the official Russian statements about how they see the conditions of the cease-fire and prospective peace talks, it is clear that Moscow has been seeking to disarm Ukraine and to paralyze it with internal political conflict, thereby making it easy prey.
When it comes to the technical and practical side, it is clear that none of the involved parties would be able to come to an agreement on the precise cease-fire provisions. Minsk agreements serve as the best example. The full-scale Russian invasion didn’t happen because Kyiv allegedly didn’t fulfil the provisions, but because the documents were written in such a manner that their fulfilment would have meant the loss of Ukraine’s independence. Given previous cases, it is highly likely that Moscow will try to bring another manipulative document to the negotiations table, already planning to accuse Kyiv of a refusal to implement it. Further, even if any document on the cease-fire is signed, it is technically impossible to guarantee its maintenance even for 24 hours, let alone for a longer period. The same applies to any prospective peace talks.
There have been no signs so far that Russia is ready to recognize the right of an independent Ukraine to exist. In addition, Vladimir Putin renewed the Leningrad Military District that incorporates the Northern Fleet in March 2024. That makes the situation very worrying not only for the Baltic countries but all Northern Europe. This situation closely resembles the winter of 2022, when Russia gathered troops near the Ukrainian border. While history never repeats itself the same way twice, Moscow and Washington met in Saudi Arabia behind closed doors to decide about the future of Europe. Without inviting Ukraine and the EU. Such “smoke-screen” negotiations are a common tactic widely used by countries not interested in finding a solution.
An Elephant in the Room: NATO Membership for Ukraine
One of the biggest lies spread by the Russian propaganda about Ukraine concerns Washington’s alleged promise of NATO membership. For many years, economic conditions influenced the desire of Ukrainians to join the EU. The idea of NATO membership existed in the public and diplomatic discourse but never enjoyed a vast support among the population. The situation was changed by the first Russian aggression, when it became clear that Kyiv needed to enhance its defence. Since then, cooperation with NATO has intensified. However, the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine about its future EU and NATO membership were largely debated within the state. Obviously, the full-scale invasion of Russia left no doubts about the value of full NATO membership for Ukraine, and it is equal to comprehensive security in the long-term.
What is obvious is that Russia’s war against Ukraine has clearly posed a question about the essence of NATO and its sphere of responsibility. Kyiv does not ask for the formal status; Kyiv has been appealing for a change of understanding of security and the means of its assurance. The question about Ukraine’s NATO membership leads to the question about the future international security order. While it has already been clear for three years, it is finally time to give a clear answer. Volodymyr Zelenskyy precisely stated that regardless of the diplomatic pressure, he would not withdraw this question from the negotiations table. Not only Russia has its legitimate security concerns.
The Future of Europe and the European Union
Russia’s invasions of Ukraine have greatly affected the foreign, security, and defence policies of European countries. The EU itself has been confronted with the need to make crucial decisions about its position in the international arena and the prospective role it would like to play. However, it is easier said than done. For at least a decade, Moscow has been conducting a policy aimed at undermining unity within the EU, while also heavily trying to destabilize European countries with a range of soft and hard instruments. Moscow has been skilfully playing, simultaneously targeting critical infrastructure, conducting cyber-attacks, supporting right-wing parties, financing a bot army spreading lies and false narratives on social media, while declaring its adherence to peace and post-conflict building, exploiting anti-Americanism moods, and promoting its culture across Europe, declaring it an instrument of reconciliation that should be beyond politics. Such a game substantially limits the EU’s ability to elaborate and implement coherent and efficient policy towards Russia. However, the European future totally depends on the ability to withstand this threat.
So far, the European population and European politicians are divided into two groups. One group believes that peace negotiations will stop the war, restoring the previous status quo, and avoiding an increase in defence spending. The other group has demonstrated a greater level of awareness, calling for the increase of defence spending and production, creation of the European army, and incorporation of Ukraine into European structures (including defence). As a result, Europe will be strong enough to defend itself, even without the US, and play a greater role in the international system. Overall, the question the EU must answer is the following: is Ukraine a part of a problem, or a part of solution?
Peace: at What Price?
It should be clearly emphasized and articulated as many times as needed: Russia should be held accountable for its crimes and atrocities against Ukraine. The war against Ukraine has not been initiated and implemented by Vladimir Putin solely. The whole country has been poisoned with propaganda for decades, raising generations of people on false and destructive narratives. The system created will not be dismantled with the death or resignation of Vladimir Putin. A political system was installed over 20 years ago, underpinned with the respective governmental structures and people involved in its maintenance. In the situation of the total absence of political opposition within the country, it is extremely naïve to expect that any of the Russian opposition located abroad would be able to win elections and manage the country. Instead, politicians who would spread ideas and sentiments of revenge would easily acquire a majority, endangering Ukraine and other neighbouring countries.
Therefore, any talks about durable and long-lasting peace should not be limited to the idea of cease-fire, however attractive it seems. Rather, they should clearly communicate the layers of the situation. And these layers concern Russia more than Ukraine. The peace in Europe does not depend on Ukraine’s EU and/or NATO membership. The peace in Europe depends on Russia’s military defeat, processes of reparations and implementation of the rule of law and democratic institutions and procedures. The creation of strong European defence that includes Ukraine (ideally in close cooperation with the US) will facilitate this process.
Olena Podvorna
Latest posts by Olena Podvorna (see all)
- From Munich to Munich? Three Years of Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine - 24. Februar 2025
- Sweden’s Accession to NATO: What Is behind the Decision? - 17. Oktober 2024
- How War in Israel Affects Russia’s War Against Ukraine - 27. November 2023
