The anti-corruption priority turned out to be a mistake. Security should come first

I miss the volume of closed interdisciplinary professional discussions. It is important for Ukrainian civil society, including its analytical segment, to be in constant consultation before coming out with a strategic agenda, so that decisions will be more balanced.

1) At the beginning of Biden's active relations with Ukraine, two positions competed for the top spot: security and anti-corruption. The latter won, and a whole infrastructure was formed to support it, which determined the strategic framework for cooperation between the United States and the West in general and Ukraine, and even more so the priorities of civil society.

“Although further developments have shown that this was a mistake, and, as the leaders of the anti-corruption movement themselves admit, anti-corruption is impossible without security, the decisions made immediately after the Revolution of Dignity were formative for the discourse for a long time. Perhaps it would have been different if the vice president had not become president because he missed his term, which is not a very typical situation, but the irony is that Ukraine needs NATO for the success of the anti-corruption fight among other things.”

The populist nature of the current or potential next Ukrainian administrations actually determines the key role of civil society in preparing, evaluating, criticizing, elaborating, and correcting the agenda before it gets into opinion polls and then is politically processed and launched into public discourse through private and state-controlled channels. The Ukrainian political sector has implementation but not analytical capacity.

2) The issue of (Ukraine's) acquisition of nuclear weapons, which is already being discussed by many actors, is precisely the kind of issue that requires considerable discussion, analysis, and evaluation of solutions before any proposal is made. Nuclear weapons change the nature of social transformation for better or worse. The experience of Israel and Pakistan is important, but it contains elements that are not applicable to Ukraine. The social, security, diplomatic, financial, institutional, and other dimensions of the nuclear decision create narrow corridors that will be difficult for both the Ukrainian political system and the Ukrainian political culture to fit into. In the case of a decision to acquire, Ukraine could be very vulnerable for a long period of time before becoming less vulnerable.

Considering the multitude of politicians, public figures, and analysts who have raised the nuclear issue in practical terms, it is crucial to approach the matter with caution and avoid providing hasty and uninformed responses. Rushing into a decision without proper consideration could potentially result in a recurrence of impulsive actions, similar to how corruption has been perceived as a cause rather than a symptom of Ukraine's challenges.

3) Despite all the temptation to take offense at the Biden administration for NATO's shameful decision, it would be constructive to continue to focus on domestic tasks, as the amount of homework is enormous. And to work to ensure that a completely different agenda emerges in Washington in a year's time.

Source

About the author: Yevhen Hlibovytskyi, expert on long-term strategies.

The editorial staff do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.