TASS, 1/16/22
KIEV, January 16. /TASS/. Ukrainian politician Viktor Medvedchuk has written his first article for the Russian media after arriving in Russia from Ukraine as a result of a detainee exchange. Medvedchuk previously held the position of the head of the political council of the Opposition Platform – For Life party, now banned in Ukraine. On April 12, 2022, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced Medvedchuk’s detention and arrest on charges of high treason and violation of the laws of warfare. At the end of September, Medvedchuk left Ukraine for Russia.
In an article published on January 16 in the daily Izvestia, Medvedchuk discusses the military confrontation in Ukraine, examines its genesis and offers a forecast of how the situation may develop.
Conflict development forecast
According to Medvedchuk, in order to defuse the situation in Ukraine, it is crucial to recognize Russia’s interests.
“The Cold War ended with a political decision to build a new world where there will be no wars. It is clear that such a world has not been built, that the current world politics has returned back to square one – the point where the policy of d·tente began. Now there are only two ways out: a further slide towards a world war and a nuclear conflict or renewed efforts to ease tensions again, for which it is necessary to take into account the interests of all parties. But for this, it is crucial to politically recognize that Russia has its own interests to be taken into account,” Medvedchuk believes.
In his opinion, the conflict will either grow to eventually spill over into Europe and other countries, or it will be localized. However, for the latter option to materialize “it is essential that the party of peace be heard.” For the time being, the Western countries actively supporting military operations in Ukraine refuse to let this happen.
Political movement for peace in Ukraine crucial
Medvedchuk points out that many Ukrainians are peace-minded and do not support Zelensky in his pursuit of military triumphs. For these people to be heard, a political movement is needed without the participation of Western countries.
“If a party that seeks peace and civil dialogue does not fit into some kind of democracy, then is it real democracy? It is necessary to create a political movement of those who have not given up, who have not renounced their convictions on pain of death and prison, who do not want their country to become a scene of geopolitical skirmishes,” he wrote.
Medvedchuk noted that Ukraine had spent most of its history with Russia and is connected with it culturally and mentally. The economy is an unambiguous imperative for integration with Russia. Anti-Russian sentiment has brought nothing but grief and poverty to Ukraine,” Medvedchuk stressed.
Role of Ukraine’s southeast
In his opinion, Russia began to integrate into the European market faster than Ukraine thanks to its energy resources. “Ukraine’s independence could well have ended in economic collapse, had it not been for the southeast, currently a scene of fierce battles. In the 1990s, it was the Russian-speaking southeast that saved the economic, and with it, political independence of Ukraine,” Medvedchuk believes. “The business of the southeast is largely pegged to Russia and its interests, because the conflict has ceased to be an exclusively internal affair. Russia is faced with the need for protecting not only its economic interests, but also its international honor and dignity.”
Genesis of conflict
As for the genesis of the current conflict, according to Medvedchuk, the West and Russia perceived the end of the Cold War differently. The West unambiguously claimed its victory, considering Moscow as the loser.
“And since Russia, in its scheme of things is the loser, then the territories of the former Soviet Union and the Socialist block are legitimate spoils of war of the United States and NATO, which, in accordance to the ‘woe to the vanquished’ rule fall under the control of the West. Hence Ukraine is to be seen as a domain of the US and NATO, and by no means of Russia,” he explains.
Medvedchuk believes that the way out of the military confrontation between the East and the West, which could end in a nuclear catastrophe, was at a certain point jointly found by Moscow and Washington. It did not at all imply that the West would absorb the East.
“It was about equitable cooperation and joint construction of a new political and economic reality. We can clearly see two approaches to ending the Cold War: the triumph of the winners, on the one hand, and the construction of a new world and civilization, on the other. Future events will follow a scenario based on these two approaches,” Medvedchuk concluded.
Link to original article by Medvedchuk here.