105th Anniversary of Independence, 1st Anniversary of War

Laas Leivat, Eesti Elu

The 24th of February is a milestone in the history of both Estonia and Ukraine. On this date Estonians mark the birth of a nation.

Volodymyr Zelensky named the same day a “rebirth” of his nation. “A new nation was born at four in the morning. It wasn’t born, it was reborn. A people who didn’t weep, or wail or cower. They didn’t flee, capitulate. And they didn’t forget.”

Was this date chosen by Putin done from strictly military considerations or historical significance, i.e. Estonia’s Independence Declaration, which, according to Putin, Russia never recognized? (Putin claims that the current Russian Federation, is not a successor state to Soviet Russia, a signatory to the Tartu Rahu.) The notion that the invasion date chosen was historically symbolic for him may be farfetched but intriguing nevertheless.

In reality February 24th marks the second Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia actually attacked in 2014, on February 20. Now after 365 days of a allout assault, many in the West are anxious to see it end.

This was echoed by Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, who in one breath condemned Russia but also found justification for Russia’s attack and appealed for peace at the behest of the Russian delegation in the UN Security Council. And this adhered to a typically professional propaganda mode – mix some rhetoric with which the UN majority agrees (criticism of Russia) with appeals for an end to fighting (Russia’s on/off tactic). Moscow’s retaining of Roger Waters matches the Kremlin’s recruitment of Russian TV celebrities who forward its agenda.

Other entertainment industry notables in the West advancing Moscow’s narrative or ameliorating its image are Steven Seagal, Leonardo DiCaprio, Gérard Depardieu, Mickey Rourke. Celebrity endorsement is a common feature in Russia’s propaganda mix.

Also supporting Russia’s narrative are political leaders such as Canada’s NDP leader Elizabeth May, British Labour party exleader Jeremy Corbyn, vocal US Republican Congressmen (some even denouncing US support for Ukraine), Hungary’s Viktor Orban advocating for reduced sanctions and others.

These voices are spurred by different motives and results, but all hope that by offering concessions, Russia might negotiate in good faith. Ukrainian supporters see this as naïve appeasement and some of those wellintentioned are blind to Putin’s historical goal of denying Ukraine’s right to national sovereignty. The current Kremlin leadership’s orientation and probably that of any successor, is driven by a conquest, subjugate and suppress mindset. It’s hypernationalistic, inbred from the Soviet era.

Putin has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is not a legitimate state. Ukraine is Russia and he’s not about to back down on this. By inference, if one doesn’t accept the idea of Ukraine, then one doesn’t accept the idea of Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic states.

This notion appears to resonate with a substantial portion of ordinary onlookers, both at home and abroad, and some foreign leaders. But an objective glance into Ukrainian history reveals how dangerously distorted is Putin’s reading of the past. His political top brass certainly subscribe to it and in all likelihood it has helped to mold their Ukraine policy.

In 1991, when Ukraine became an independent country, a referendum showed that fully 92.3% rejected remaining within the collapsed Soviet Union. Statistically, a significant segment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine also voted for independence. Putin and his acolytes adhere to a dangerous distortion of the past and thus, have not done themselves any favours.

Peace advocates have mindlessly and/or indirectly suggested that Ukraine should consider some concessions, that would provide an opening for peace talks. The Russian prognosis of what may constitute an end to the war has changed several times over the last 12 months. But Kiev wasn’t conquered, Europe didn’t crumble under an energy blackmail, the Russian military gains in the Donbas were not stunning victories, the West hasn’t been depleted of ammunition, money or will. None of what Moscow expected to stop the conflict, developed.

Should the West count on Russia honouring a peace treaty? Based on their past record, probably not. The Soviet Union (which Russia claims/disclaims to be its legitimate successor, depending on the circumstances) attacked Estonia, despite forswearing otherwise in the Tartu Peace Treaty of 1920.

Similarly, the “Minsk negotiation process” initiated in 2014, with France and Germany also participating lasted for eight years, aiming to end the Russian-Ukraine conflict. It failed devastatingly on February 24, 2022. It was the West’s misguided politics and diplomacy that allowed Russia to build up as Ukraine was freezing its battle lines and holding back. This was a true-to-life example of how not to negotiate with Moscow.

The Minsk agreement was doomed to failure. We recall that on the eve of Russia’s fullscale assault, Putin lied unabashedly to world leaders that no invasion was planned. It was spitting in the face of some, who are still playing straight into Putin’s hand, who want peace at any cost.

Putin must be convinced that the West stays solid, not swayed by voices who insist on persuading Russia to join in talks. He must not be enticed by hints that Ukraine is willing to compromise. He must be induced by the only means he understands – that he has no other choice.