NEW east EUROPE: Let us look at the changes that are taking place globally. We clearly see any shifts in the planet order. Do you think we are entering a completely fresh phase of global politics?
SERHIY SYDORENKO: We are not entering it; we are already in it. This is undisputable. Let’s look specifically at global legal norms, which were violated by Russia in 2014 but was not widely recognized by the global community as a breakthrough minute (in Ukraine it mostly was, but not overseas). That’s why in 2014 we did not talk about the full violation or demolition of the post-war planet order. And that’s crucial – the demolition of the planet order starts to happen not erstwhile the changes are actually taking place but erstwhile there is simply a wide realisation about it.
That’s what we’ve got since 2022 and after. Now there is no uncertainty in Europe that global norms were violated and that if the aggressor is not punished and forced to step back, the planet order can no longer be preserved. erstwhile we talking about the global order we can say that while the old order has already been destroyed, the fresh 1 has not yet been built. Thus, we are in a transition phase, where we can only guess what may come next. We speculate with a strong degree of certainty that any of the existing arrangements will not survive. I do not see much chance for the OSCE, for example, unless it is full remade. We are witnessing a process of NATO’s reshaping. Let’s face the truth. Are we certain that in a year we will have NATO with 32 allies participating in its military component? I’m not sure. The US is 1 of those countries that could leave the Alliance effectively. Not fully, but effectively. We have been in specified a situation before. We’ve had allies leaving NATO for decades. You could claim that they were members of the organization in political terms, meaning they took part in summits, but they were not taking part in what we can call NATO’s core. And that core is defence, not politics. Even though NATO is called a defensive and political union, defence comes first. So there is simply a chance that we will see a fresh reality even erstwhile it comes to NATO, the most effective military alliance in the world, and these are not just empty words. However, the situation is inactive evolving – we are at a phase where change has become real and is on the table. There are inactive plenty of mechanisms taking place, so we do not know what the planet will look like in respective years. I don’t know what will happen with the United Nations, not as much in the short word but in the long term, in 10 years. But I do not want to speculate due to the fact that so much depends on the details which are not yet clear. For example, how long will Putin live? What will happen to Russia erstwhile he dies? We know it will happen 1 day, but we don’t know what will happen afterwards. We besides don’t know what will happen erstwhile the Taiwan Strait is crossed by Chinese military ships. That is why we can say that the changes that are taking place now are not only about the European continent and its future, but about the fresh planet order. This fresh strategy derives from the developments which have been in place for the last 11 years, or possibly more, but specifically the last 3 and a half years.
What is your explanation of the current phase of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the negotiation process that has been initiated by the Donald Trump administration in the United Sates. Is there any area for optimism?
Let me be consecutive and say something which your readers may not like to hear, but which is the reality and that is why I request to say it. I cannot see any way, or almost no way, which would collectively let the 3 main players in this war effort – that is Ukraine, the European Union (and its allies) and the United States – to not lose this war with Russia. erstwhile a country loses a part of its territory, it is already a defeat. I know that many of our allies say that we have saved our sovereignty and independence. Yes, we have. But you can save your sovereignty and independency and inactive lose a war. No 1 claims that Finland won the 1939 Winter War. The Finnish lost it, but they could have lost more. Just like us, Ukrainians, we could have lost more. We have managed to avoid the worst scenario, indeed. But this does not mean that this war is not a defeat for us. The US has besides lost this war, but they don’t care. And it is up to them to decide if they want to stay a superpower which plays a major function in this part of the world, or not. However, the fact that the US has lost this war is besides a signal to China and for that reason this defeat could be a threat to American interests in the future. Europe has lost this war as well. It has lost it due to the fact that it got itself into a situation where the aggressor, Russia, has not been decently punished for the atrocities it has committed. Instead, it has kept its territorial gains, which in turn has convinced Putin that it is him who has won. Therefore, Putin sees his name going into the past books as a leader who has gained territory for Russia. Europe, on the another hand, is in a very susceptible situation, where many European countries are not certain whether this war will not spread to their own territories. This military defeat is not the end of the world. As Ukrainians, we have no choice but to keep surviving and doing our best to make our country. However, it is crucial that we all face the fact and unfortunately I see many attempts from the West to deceive themselves by calling our defeat a “victory”. It is not a “victory”. The fact is, we have lost this war; together.
At what point did you realize that we are losing this war?
I have been seeing movement in this direction for rather any time. Let me be frank and say that it is not only due to Donald Trump. Unfortunately, the current situation is besides the consequence of US policy under the erstwhile president – Joe Biden. However, at that time, Americans were more akin to hide their approach, even though they were implementing it as well. It was the erstwhile administration which refused to associate the words “Ukraine” and “victory”. They were the ones who invented the “incremental support” approach, which aimed to let the Ukrainian army to sustain itself but not to win. But of course, erstwhile Trump got into office, his decisions and actions exceeded all of our negative expectations. Before I was trying to believe that losing the war was avoidable, but now it is clear to me. Let me besides say that Europe besides was hesitant to decision with full velocity and only until very late did it realize how dangerous the situation was.
Speaking about the fresh American administration, and more specifically about the uncommon earth mineral deal, we can say that it went from bad to better, and now to worse. Where, in your view, is it actually leading Ukraine to?
I am not certain how applicable my words will be in 2 months or even in a period erstwhile your readers will be reading this issue, due to the fact that we can see that the situation is inactive developing and we do not know now what we will see in the end. But I am very content that the Ukrainian leadership has yet understood the reality and sees how dangerous this fresh deal is. This is how we can interpret Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s fresh statements. From them we can see that the Ukrainian government is now convinced that we should not be paying for what was provided to us as grants, as an expression of support to Ukraine, nor for those weapons that we received but which not always were what we had asked for. It is absolutely unacceptable to convert these donations into loans (in the current mineral deal, Ukraine is expected to pay back the US for all the aid it has received since 2022 – editor’s note). Should we agree to these conditions, they would bring immense consequences and from our point of view they are unacceptable. Fortunately, the Ukrainian authorities are aware of these risks. It is possible that we will end up with any form of an agreement that will destruct the provision that stipulates that we gotta compensate for the aid. I believe that this would be the outcome, but I don’t know that for sure.
What could decide which of these options takes place?
What will decide here is which part of Trump’s ellipse wins. I am convinced that around Trump there are people who realize that Ukraine should not pay for the assistance it has received. At the same time, there are besides those who feed Trump’s desire to go this way. The question is which group will win and this will specify the result of the negotiations and whether we will sign the deal or not.
Are negotiations inactive possible?
Absolutely. From what I am seeing at the minute we are inactive at what we call the starting position. At this phase of negotiation, the proposals put forward can be unrealistic, due to the fact that they are the starting point. erstwhile you put specified a proposal on the table, you show that you are ready to negotiate. In global talks, we can see that parties frequently start with the toughest positions with something they can agree on. If, on the another hand, they start with a more realistic proposal, then they frequently end up with something worse than what they wanted. That is why I believe we are now seeing the starting position which has been deliberately drafted in an unacceptable form. And this explains why there is inactive area for negotiations. At the same time, I have no illusions that these negotiations will be difficult. We have already experienced this besides this year erstwhile we negotiated that first draft, which was initially a disaster but which ended up being rather okay.
Let’s get back to the fresh developments in Europe and the reactions to the situation in Ukraine. We have any urgent summits, and the launching of the alleged “coalition of the willing”, which is simply a group of countries that claim they are willing to send troops to Ukraine, erstwhile a peace agreement is reached. How do you measure these activities and Europe’s overall engagement?
I would say that the coalition of the willing is as crucial as the processes taking place in the EU with regards to strengthening its own military production, procurement and so on. The EU has adopted a good approach, and I believe it will let the EU to truly rearm. Frankly, we gotta admit that it was completely unreasonable to have the US pay for European defence for so many decades. That is why I see any solid ground in the American demands. What was the justification for the US to pay for Germany, France and to any degree the UK’s defence? I can see a reasonable justification for the US to aid Poland or the Baltic states, as this assistance could contribute to any stability. But supporting Germany, which until late was spending little than 1 per cent of its GDP on defence, makes no sense to me. It had to be addressed. Of course, now it is being dealt with in a very improper manner, with besides much haste, but well, it had to end up this way. I see that Europe has yet come to terms with that and understands that the times erstwhile the US took care of European safety are over. That is why all these efforts that Europe has undertaken late make perfect sense to me. That multiplying of efforts to arm and increase military purchases would to any degree aid Ukraine as well. It could aid us sustain our military actions as I truly don’t know whether there will be a ceasefire.
I besides think that while European efforts are belated, they are truly needed. We know that it’s always better erstwhile things are done later alternatively than never. And that’s why the decisions that are being taken by the European leadership now are important. Yet, any implementation, specified as sending troops to Ukraine, for example, requires a ceasefire. And I am not so certain if a ceasefire is going to take place. Had you asked me about the ceasefire before, even earlier this year, I would have told you that there would be no ceasefire without the US participation. Now, I believe we could have a ceasefire, just due to the fact that there will be no US participation. Also, any countries are hesitant to participate in these recently proposed efforts. I realize why: political leaders want to be re-elected and for that they request to tell their voters that they will not send troops to the front line in Ukraine. This yet can change erstwhile a more or little sustainable peace is achieved. Then it should not be specified a large problem to send troops to Ukraine. Even more, I believe it will make perfect sense for European armies to go to Ukraine to learn combat techniques. This will be especially valuable for countries that may request to defend their people and territories in the future. This group besides includes those that are now saying that they will not send their soldiers anywhere – like Poland. Learning from the Ukrainian experience will surely make European armies stronger.
Seemingly NATO has closed its doors to Ukraine, but the EU’s doors stay open. How do you measure the EU process and the chances for integration?
Let me stress that I truly believe that NATO’s doors have not been closed forever. It is very crucial to state that and I am happy that our leadership makes specified statements too. Let’s besides admit that we don’t know if NATO will last in its current form. Or whether there will be a fresh military alliance on the European continent. For Ukraine it is crucial to stay committed to its future membership which, I believe, will happen 1 day, nonetheless. I am realistic that it will not happen in the close future.
What about EU integration?
I can barely see our accession as long as the hot war is ongoing. It’s unimaginable and for plenty of reasons. They are technical, structural, political and so on. That is why I am more prone to believe that erstwhile this war is over – it should be over 1 day – we will have a window of chance to integrate with the EU. It is important, however, to realize that EU membership is not a consequence of political will but large reforms. From what I am proceeding from our political elite there is simply a increasing knowing of that in Ukraine. The problem is we don’t know erstwhile the hot war will be over. Let me stress here that I do not anticipate that this war will end with the worst case script for Ukraine. But I besides cannot say that Kyiv will stay the capital of Ukraine until, let’s say, 2030. I believe it will but I have no ground to say so with full certainty. The script that we say is the most probable present is that Ukraine would more or little be similar, not identical, as to what we have now. We can besides foretell that at a certain point both Ukraine and Russia will most likely become exhausted. Hopefully there will be no atomic strikes, but this is besides something I cannot besides exclude. If we exclude specified a scenario, it means that we don’t accept reality.
Returning to the most possible script that I described, we may say that 1 day we will have any kind of peace which will be claimed to be long-standing and stable. And I’d like to stress that erstwhile I am saying that this peace “will be claimed”, it does not mean that it will be long-standing and stable. However, it will be a minute erstwhile we will have a window of chance for concrete actions. This means that we gotta prepare for that day erstwhile peace, even if temporary and semi-stable, becomes our reality. We should be then as advanced as possible in our reforms. At that moment, we will besides have a chance for success in our accession. Fortunately, the European leaders have come to an knowing of how crucial it is for Ukraine to survive, which is besides crucial for them. Let me remind you what I said towards the beginning of our conversation – we have gotten to a point where it becomes almost unavoidable that Ukraine loses this war. And Europe will lose it too. Europe now understands that. There might be any public denial, but the leadership has an knowing of that. That is why they don’t want to lose again.
Serhiy Sydorenko is the co-founder and editor of European Pravda, the largest Ukrainian news portal with a primary focus on EU Affairs, European events, and Ukraine’s European future.
