Russia presents side in Russia-Ukraine relations

Regarding former chief justice Artemio V. Panganiban’s May 31 column (“WW III hot spots”), and as my professional duty, I would like to share my views on that particular abstract about Russia and Ukraine.

Ukraine and Russia were part of the Soviet Union; after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the two countries retained their close ties in the economic sphere and in people-to-people relations. Both Russia and Ukraine (like most of the countries of the former Soviet Union) were part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. There was no need for any “overtures” for any pacts. They came not from Russia but from the European Union which assertively urged Kiev to choose between the East and the West. Russia on the other hand, has always advocated for the establishment of a common space of security and economic cooperation in Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

However, Russia and Ukraine later experienced some problems in their relations. Both countries had their share of contentious issues, which is usual among neighbors. The crisis in Russia-Ukraine relations was caused by the unconstitutional coup d’etat, which was carried out with political support and financial assistance from abroad, against the absolutely legitimate and internationally recognized President Viktor Yanukovich who, by the way, was neither pro-Russian nor anti-Russian. This unlawful act was not accepted by millions of Ukrainian citizens.

The people of the Donbass region expressed their desire  to retain their legitimate rights to speak in Russian, to elect their municipal authorities and to participate in the distribution of incomes on an equitable basis. This could and should have been the subject of negotiation with the US-backed political regime in Kiev. Instead, seven million citizens were labeled as “terrorists” and subjected to a merciless punitive operation that used heavy artillery and air assault. This has led to a conflict that has already claimed the lives of more than 6,000 innocent civilians, including women, children and the elderly. All of them were brutally killed by the Ukrainian Army in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. No child or woman died outside these two regions as a result of hostilities with the so-called “Russian-backed separatists.”

Responsibility for these atrocities lies on the current Kiev authorities who stubbornly refuse to engage their own citizens in a direct dialogue.

Russia is not a party to the intra-Ukrainian conflict and has been exerting every effort to facilitate a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. It has also helped the parties concerned to achieve the Minsk Agreements which call for inclusive constitutional reform, the restoration of socioeconomic ties with the Donbass region, and the resumption of payment of pensions and other social security obligations by the Kiev government. Details should be worked out during the negotiations between the authorities in Kiev and the representatives of the Donbass and Luhansk regions. The most important thing now is the consecutive implementation of the agreements. Alas, the actions of Kiev authorities are quite the opposite to what they promised to do in Minsk.

There are no Russian regular troops in Ukraine. Despite the widespread and sweeping accusations about Russia’s military involvement in the conflict, no Western media or government official has ever shown any conclusive evidence to substantiate those charges.

The allegations about Crimea’s “annexation” are groundless. The decision to join the Russian Federation was made by 90 percent of the voters during a referendum carried out in strict compliance with relevant Ukrainian laws and procedures. It was a choice made freely, voluntarily and without external coercion by the proud and self-confident people of Crimea, and it deserves all respect. In fact, Crimea was “annexed” by the people living in the peninsula.

And last but not least, it is rather curious that all three spots have at least one thing in common: These are in regions where a certain country—a superpower—is either deeply involved or trying to get itself involved.

This superpower often acts unprofessionally in its foreign policy, ignores other actors’ opinions, lacks the desire and ability to calculate long-term consequences of its policy and arrogantly manipulates international law. It lays claims to superiority and unilateral leadership instead of relying on collective efforts to solve the pressing problems of our interdependent world. I guess you know what country it is.

—ILYA PERENKOV, press attaché, Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of the Philippines