By Askold Lozynskyj
This is an attempted analysis of the more than a decade long war of Russian aggression in Ukraine with the aim of finding a reasonable solution which would result in long term peace. Of course, there are many factors here that cannot be addressed because of the inability to foresee unexpected circumstances including force majeure. Nevertheless, this analysis is based on daily scrutiny of the events as they enveloped from the very first day following the fleeing of Russian surrogate and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovich from Ukraine to Russia, finding refuge there and the immediate attack by Russia and its surrogates in the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea. The study utilizes primary, secondary and even tertiary sources according to each the weight it deserves. I travelled to Ukraine at least 2-3 times annually, met with soldiers and volunteers, read Western and Ukrainian press reports as well as Russian misrepresentations made before the international community.
I do not pretend to be unbiased as I am a Ukrainian born in America well versed in Ukrainian Russian relations over 73 years of my life. I have also travelled to Russia several times during the early part of this century. I have never met the main antagonist here, but I have met several of his cohorts, including his foreign minister and his former permanent representative to the United Nations whom I believe Putin sent to an early grave. My opinion of the Russians that I have met as well as Russian culture and way of life is very negative. This view I will not attempt to hide in my analysis. I submit that Russia is the aggressor here, guilty not only of starting this war but of conducting it without any regard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians including children.
International law or norms do not sway Russian behavior and over the course of the decade Russia has become more brazen in this regard.
The easy solution is more often than not, not a solution at all. This adage is not particularly profound but it does have many historical and contemporary significant and mundane applications. Winning and procuring an unconditional surrender thereby dictating all terms is the simplest result, but clearly the most difficult to achieve. Given the fact that Russia’s war in Ukraine is well into the twelfth year thus far Russia has occupied at best only 20% of Ukrainian territory, an absolute victory beyond comprehension. Russia certainly possesses greater human resources and a larger supply of weapons, but that has been balanced out by Ukraine’s ingenuity and assistance from its allies, the United States notwithstanding.
In any discussion of an absolute victory by Russia, intangibles have to be considered. To date Russia has suffered much greater military losses than Ukraine. Concurrently Ukraine has suffered civilian and infrastructural loss because the lion’s share of the fighting has been on Ukrainian territory and because Russian aggression has been barbaric with no regard for international law. Ukraine on the other hand even when invading Russian territory has mainly targeted military and energy outposts. Perhaps the single most significant intangible is that the Ukrainian side of the war is existential while Russia’s is simply barbarian imperialism.
Russia fights because it is driven by a psychotic disposition to be an empire. This is a cultural psychosis. Russia does not need Ukraine except that without Ukraine Russia is not an empire of historic note. Ukraine’s capital Kyiv was founded in the V century. Moscow was founded in the XII. The Kyivan state was in essence an empire by standards which existed in the IX and X century including a part of the Crimean peninsula. Muscovy did not exist as an independent state until the XVI century and took both its Christianity and ultimate name from Kyivan Rus’. Muscovy was merely a village in swamp lands with no meaningful identity.
Ukrainians fight back because without defending themselves, they would lose their land, their identity and their existence as a nation. They are fighting on their own land. In many cases they are protecting their elderly parents, spouse, children, future generations and ensuring their future right to live on that land. Every Ukrainian grandmother is capable of concocting and using a Molotov cocktail. Russian clerics have provided the ‘mens rea’ and made it abundantly clear that the purpose of ‘special military operation’ is to erase Ukrainians off the face of the earth.
Diplomacy is a simple solution, but not an effective one because in order for diplomacy to succeed there must be good faitl on both sides. The term ‘ceasefire’ has been misused much too often. A ceasefire while it may afford both sides an opportunity to regroup is not an end to the hostilities. Regardless of terms a ceasefire would not prevent Russia from being a danger in the future, immediate or remote. It must be acknowledged that Russia’s terms for a ceasefire are patently absurd. They are tantamount to a surrender by Ukraine. Certainly any mediator cannot come from the United States because he/she would not be independent of the American president who aside from his past performance as a friend of the Russian president, is also entirely ignorant of the historical hostilities between the two nations. Frankly, Trump does not care if Ukraine exists. Even accepting his disingenuous saving lives concerns over his quest for a Nobel peace prize, Ukraine and Ukrainians have no future with someone who knows no history and has no moral underpinning.
Russian history and culture prove that the state and its people are hostile and inveterate imperialists. The Russian Federation today consists of eleven time zones. Only one legitimately belongs to Russia. The remainder are territory invaded and annexed by force. Some one hundred fifty nationalities reside within the Russian Federation. More than half are indigenous. What that means is that their lands do not legitimately belong to Russia. These indigenous peoples are persecuted in myriad ways. Often they have been canon fodder in Russian wars. Today, they are posted on the front lines. Their language and culture are suppressed. Despite the fact that the term autonomy is sprinkled throughout the Constitution of the RF, the term has no real application. Upon occasion when there has been an uprising in any indigenous enclave that manifestation has been quickly suppressed.
Putin did not make Russia. Russia made Putin. This is the most important fact that the West cannot comprehend. Even a marginal study of the history of the Russian empire would make this most abundantly clear. While Vladimir Putin is brutal, he follows a long list of Russian criminal leaders. Putin himself has patterned his rule and spoken out about his progenitors, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. They were great only by the measure of Russian historians. Sure, they expanded the empire, but they did so with much blood being spilled.
From the Soviet era, Putin picked up the mantra of Josef Stalin. No greater killer has there been in the history of the world except perhaps for Mao. Even Hitler pales by comparison. Stalin managed to murder between 7-10 million Ukrainians in 1932-33 through an enforced famine which included three million children. The weapon was not simply the lack of food, but the fact that food was confiscated and exported and then the borders of Ukraine were shut so that the starving could not migrate in search of food. By Stalin’s measure Putin may seem benign. The history of Russia is a story of brutality, tyranny, blood and millions of victims. That history has become the Russian culture so that the Russian mother is complicit in the crime.
And so my solution is not the easiest because of its multitude of factors. The Russian empire perhaps can be defeated on the battlefield, but certainly not to the point of its absolute destruction or dismantling. A ceasefire is a temporary measure if only to destroy the Russian economy in the interim. A XXI century economy is a complicated mechanism because it is composed of so many factors and variables. Precisely, because of this the Russian economic conundrum has to be addressed. Russia is not so complicated. Its main export is oil and gas. Its main industry is the export of these commodities and some other natural resources. Its main industry is the manufacture of weapons and Russia is not very good at it. War is good for Russia because it feeds the war industry. Sanctions are bad for Russia because that lowers the price of its main commodity.
A representative of the Ukrainian community in Russia Marika Semeneko, recently wrote a Master’s thesis at the Central European University in Vienna, Austria on the subject of what I consider to be Russia’s weakest link or greatest frailty- its indigenous composition. Here are her thoughts:
“The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, launched in February 2022, catalyzed the emergence of new forms of activism among Indigenous peoples from Russia. Initially, activists organized anti-war initiatives to oppose the conscription of Indigenous peoples into a war justified under the pretense of “protecting Russians. As early as March 2022, Ukrainian mass media began circulating narratives about ‘Putin’s Buryats’. The Buryats, an Indigenous people living in the Republic of Buryatia in Eastern Siberia—approximately 7,000 kilometers from Ukraine— became a focal point of this discourse. In response, activists from the Free Buryatia Foundation, an anti-war movement, challenged the myth of ‘Putin’s Buryats,’ arguing that ‘the legacy of colonization and many years of Russification made the Buryats part of the Russian military machine.’ In September 2022, following Putin’s declaration of partial mobilization, Buryats were conscripted at a rate three times higher than in regions predominantly inhabited by ethnic Russians…Notably, at that time, many of these activists had not yet explicitly identified as Indigenous; instead, they were in the process of exploring an appropriate mode of self-identification. Their initial response was a reactive assertion of their ethnic ‘non-Russianness.’ For instance, in reaction to pro-war posters in the Republic of Kalmykia… that declared, ‘I am Kalmyk, but today I am Russian,’ the Kalmyk brand 4 Oirad produced T-shirts bearing the phrase ‘Nerusskiy’ (I am not Russian) in Russian. Consequently, members of the brand were forced to leave Kalmykia due to criminal prosecution related to the design. With the growth of anti-war activism, activists from various places, republics, and regions began identifying themselves as Indigenous. Putin’s official justification for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine—framed through the discourse of ‘denazification’—also provoked strong reactions from Indigenous activists, who began criticizing the government for its perceived cynicism. In response, Indigenous activists shared personal accounts of discrimination and systemic racism, arguing that Russia itself required ‘denazification.’ Highlighting the high levels of xenophobia toward ethnic non-Russians, many Indigenous voices were particularly outraged by a statement Putin made in 2022: ‘I am a Russian man, but when I see examples of such heroism as the feat of a young man — Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov, a native of Dagestan, a Lak by nationality, our other soldiers, I want to say: I am a Lak, I am a Dagestani, I am a Chechen, Ingush, Russian, Tatar, Jew, Mordvin, Ossetian. I am proud that I am part of this world, part of the mighty, strong, and multinational people of Russia.’ In response, Alexandra Garmagapova, head of the Free Buryatia Foundation, remarked: ‘When the war needs soldiers, Russia suddenly becomes a multinational state. The essence of the empire is that Indigenous peoples are needed only to die for it.’…Beyond the Free Buryatia Foundation, a range of other Indigenous grassroots initiatives have emerged in resistance to the Russian imperial project. These include Indigenous of Russia, Beda Media, the Free Yakutia Foundation, the Free Kalmykia Foundation, New Tyva, From the Republics, Komi Daily, Republic Speaking, as well as independent activists. This emergent activism is marked by its pronounced heterogeneity and diversity, manifesting in a multiplicity of forms, expressive mediums, and political articulations. Rather than presenting a unified ideology, centralized vision, or singular demand, it is animated by a plurality of images for the present and future. The only shared declaration is encapsulated in a manifesto asserting that the fate of Indigenous peoples cannot be determined without their direct involvement. What binds these varied actors together is a common resistance to Russia’s ongoing colonialism.”
I am inclined to find the solution to Russian aggression whether today’s or in the future through that prism. It certainly is not the easiest solution, but that is the point. It is a real solution. Dismantle the Russian empire.
The application here is not simply for the benefit of Ukraine. In a recent interview the Prime Minister of Estonia whose country has a border with Russia and spends more than NATO’s goal of 5% of GDP on defence, stated that all of Europe has come to recognize the Russian menace and understand that kilometres will not protect them. That is something that President Zelensky had tried to explain to President Trump, that even an ocean is not an absolute solution to a Russian threat. Despite the fact that Russia has and continues to interfere in democratic processes in the United States, President Trump could not understand the point that President Zelensky was making.
Vladimir Putin is a temporary problem. Bereft of the ability to pay his protectors, his guards and police, Putin will succumb to his next rival. Are there rivals? Putin is very rich. There are many rivals who would like to be as rich. Under the circumstances Putin may be next to leap from the 5th floor. And then there will be a period of chaos, providing an opportunity for the indigenous peoples to arise. Who will pay the military and the police to put down the uprising when there is no money to pay the enforcers.
And so the indigenous people will rise and they will proclaim their independence and Russia will draw back to some original borders. Eventually a strongman should prevail in Moscow and he/she will control the local unrest in the capital, but the genie will be out of the bottle and the Federation (empire) will be out of Moscow’s control. Having suffered monumental losses in the war and the civil insurrection and with the economy depleted by a precipitous decline in the price of exported oil and gas, Moscow will be a bystander as independent states are proclaimed.
The countries of Europe buoyed by this new development should hasten to recognize the new states. The United States with or without Trump will delay recognition until the issue of the nuclear arsenal is addressed. In any event, weapon grade uranium in the hands of several feckless governments is better than in the hands of one brutal regime. Clearly the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency will have to step in.
I am certain that long term this is a more realistic and lasting plan than a brief ceasefire which could never result in a safer world. It certainly merits consideration and support for those indigenous peoples. At the very least this strategy has more long term possibilities. Besides. a brief ceasefire would undermine international institutions regarding such matters as arrest warrants, punishing war crimes, etc.
Can anyone imagine a legitimate ceasefire with Russian soldiers and tanks on Ukraine’s (Finland’s, Estonia’s) border and Ukraine deprived of NATO membership and borders at best unclear. That’s not much of a solution. And it would not get any better unless there is no Russian aggressor. That has to be the strategy – to make Russia non aggressive. Even people sleeping in America would sleep better. That is the thrust of global peacemaking and security. Ultimately history will record that in the XXI century supporting Ukraine was about making the world a safer place by decolonizing and dismantling the Russian empire.
July 21, 2025