Interim 'peace' talks ring hollow

Instead, if we set aside the efforts of pro-government “positive bloggers,” depictions with the opposite sign have become more frequent.

Relying on the available grim economic, demographic, and social indicators, commentators compete in painting dystopias.

This is especially true given the uncertain end of the war and corresponding fears of a “Weimar scenario”: a “difficult decision” in the terms of the Servant of the People party chat, that is, giving up positions that the active part of society, especially frontline veterans, would consider a “betrayal.”

Let us try to find a ray of hope at the end of this tunnel.

First, for now, the reliable guarantee against the “Weimar scenario” remains… Russia. The aggressor wants everything at once. It needs to eliminate hundreds of thousands of individuals capable of killing, not in the rear Russian cities with the attitude of “we didn’t send you there,” but in the conquered territories of “completed ‘special military operation’ tasks.”

"So the war will continue until one of two things happens: either Ukraine runs out of people willing to fight for it, or Russia runs out of the ability to finance the war."

All interim talks about “peace” are empty. Either we are forced to capitulate (and enough sensible forces in the West oppose this), or Russia is forced to stop without demanding additional gains not backed by front-line results (“the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from Donbas,” etc.).

Here, the situation is “the bulldozer creeps”: Ukraine will slowly lose people and territory, while Russia will lose many people and resources.

The war will end when the bulldozer stops (or is stopped).

Therefore, secondly, post-war scenarios are heavily determined by what, how, and when the hostilities end. As long as they continue, all factors — economic, demographic, social — work against Ukraine.

Special efforts are needed to turn the objective horrors of wartime into opportunities for investors who will create development prospects for Ukraine.

And here is the third point, which unites the first two.

"The current government has shown a strategic inability to cope with challenges, both those of wartime and the prospects of reconstruction."

Corruption, “everything for our own, for opponents — State Bureau of Investigation,” ignorance — these all undermine the foundations of state efficiency.

Support from allies (currently primarily European) is vital, but it depends greatly on the dynamics of public sentiment in those countries. Relying solely on external assistance is also misleading: in critical times, it is a country’s own resources and capabilities that determine its negotiating power and its place in the world.

World history offers many examples where, after a difficult peace and despite the challenges of the post-war period, countries achieved success: the United States after the War of Independence, West Germany and Finland after the Second World War, South Korea…

All these examples, separated in time and space, share one thing: the ability of the authorities to take control of the situation.

For us, the key could be forming a unity coalition and a national salvation government. The authorities do not want this and instead promote a model of “five to six managers,” hiding systemic mistakes behind the noise of a “telemarathon” and the mudslinging of Telegram dumps.

The significance of elections, which will take place after the end of hostilities, is even greater. But in order for adequate and effective authority to emerge based on their results, they must be free and fair.

The authorities are already preparing, even during hostilities. They are paving the way for “elections without a choice.” These will briefly secure the authorities at the helm, but their ignorance will lead to further decline, chaos, and decay. This is the source of the “dystopian” forecasts by commentators.

To prevent this, it is necessary to disrupt the authorities’ plans to hold “elections without a choice.” Relevant draft decisions must be tracked and challenged. Both partners, in the context of European integration, and civil society must be involved in this.

Then the current authorities will bear responsibility for what they have done and failed to do, and Ukraine will have a chance to rise from the ashes of our war for independence.

Source

About the author. Rostyslav Pavlenko, Ukrainian politician, political scientist, political strategist, and lecturer. Member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 9th convocation.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.