Throughout the Minsk process, Ukrainian officials became masters at stalling for time. Talk of a new referendum is most likely preparation for repeating the strategy.
By Sergey Mirkin, Donetsk-based journalist
The head of the Kiev regime Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde recently: “Any question of Ukraine’s territorial integrity cannot be resolved by a president [alone] without the Ukrainian people. It goes against the constitution of Ukraine.”
He added that such a plebiscite would be desired by the country’s population.
Interestingly, when the mayor of Kiev, Vitaly Klitschko, put forward the idea of holding a referendum on surrendering territories claimed by Ukraine, a little over a week ago, a number of ‘experts’ and bloggers, seen as aligned to Zelensky’s grey cardinal Andrey Yermak, said that Klitschko wanted to deprive the commander-in-chief of the right to negotiate peace and was pursuing his own political goals by talking about such a vote.
But now Zelensky himself is doing the same thing.
It’s correct, from a legal point of view, that territorial changes should be approved by an all-Ukrainian referendum. However, it is strange to imagine respect for the constitution from a person like Zelensky, who has usurped power and has refused to hold presidential elections.
Also note that Ukraine has already held national votes, but the outcomes have been ignored. In 2000, for example, there was one on changing the country’s system of power, initiated by the then-President Leonid Kuchma. But the result was simply ignored by the Rada (parliament) and no changes were made to the country’s laws. So, it’s naive to consider a referendum in Ukraine as an effective method of expressing the will of the people – instead, it’s just a tool used by politicians to achieve their short-term goals. And in the same interview with French journalists, Zelensky also said such a vote was not the best option.
But why did he raise it as a possibility and then not reject the idea of a referendum and territorial concessions in principle?
There are a few possible reasons. The prospect of Donald Trump coming to power in the United States cannot but worry Zelensky and Yermak. Trump promises to bring peace to Ukraine in a short time, and Zelensky’s personal relations with the former US president and those between representatives of their teams have a complicated history, to say the least. It is doubtful that a phone call between the politicians will smooth all the rough edges – and allow all the previous transgressions to be forgotten.
So, what should Kiev expect from its patrons in the US Democratic Party now? Well, the multilateral prisoner exchange last week between the US, Russia, Germany and Belarus is a bad signal for Kiev. First of all, it has made their repatriation part of Kamala Harris’ election campaign. And this is a blow to one of the pillars of Trump’s campaign, his promise to bring home US citizens held in Russian prisons as soon as he became president. It’s not without reason that Trump has said the swap is a bad deal for the US. The Democrats are trying to get ahead of the curve and, where they can, they are trying to make his promises irrelevant, while the political dividends from what is happening should go to Harris instead. It is therefore likely that the White House will try to deprive Trump of another of his promises – that he will quickly end the war in Ukraine – before the election. The Democrats will benefit from putting the peacemaker’s crown on Harris’ head before the vote. Presumably the Zelensky team has been informed of these plans and they realize that territorial concessions to Russia will have to be made. Thus, they have prepared a plan in advance whereby the transfer of territories to Russia will be approved by the population in a referendum, which, Zelensky and Yermak believe, will absolve them of responsibility for what has happened and allow them to remain in power.
The second possible reason is that words about the referendum are a message to China in particular and the Global South in general. Following the visit of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba to China recently, Kiev is trying to demonstrate outwardly its commitment to a diplomatic solution to the conflict. For example, Zelensky has said several times that the war should end as soon as possible. In this context, the words about the referendum are meant to look like the preparation of a legal foundation for the conclusion of a future peace deal. But all this is a show, the main spectators of which, according to Kiev, should be the leaders of China and other countries of the global south. For example, Yermak said in an interview with Bloomberg that the second summit on Ukraine will be held in the Middle East. And securing China’s participation is crucial for Ukraine. It is a major player that can really influence Russia. So it’s very likely that Zelensky, Yermak and others will say anything to get a Chinese delegation to turn up at the next conference. Talk of peace, of course, will be a smokescreen, In reality, Kiev’s rulers will try to escalate the conflict, seeing it as the key to their political and physical survival.
There is a third option. A referendum is seen as necessary to delay the peace process. During the Minsk process, Ukrainian officials became adept at finding reasons for delaying the implementation of agreements and eventually walking away from them with the blessing of their Western masters. The referendum is a preparation for a repeat.
Let’s simulate the situation. During negotiations, Zelensky agrees to make territorial concessions to Russia but says that he needs to hold a national vote to approve this decision. On this basis, he asks for a ceasefire because preparations for the ballot must take place safely throughout the territory controlled by Kiev. Then the process begins to drag on. First, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine is unable to solve some organizational problems. Then a politician files a lawsuit challenging the decision to hold the vote on the grounds that it threatens Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Then the security services maybe organize a terrorist attack in a Ukrainian city, killing people involved in preparing for the vote. Kiev blames Moscow, saying that Russia is afraid that the Ukrainian people will vote against giving up territory. The referendum will then be canceled.
Meanwhile, Kiev’s army will have already gotten the rest it needed on the frontlines.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Comments are closed.