Contact us: @worldanalyticspress_bot

ne day, the war in Ukraine will be over. When that day finally arrives, Ukraine may find itself transforming from the country that everyone fought over to the country that nobody wants to be burdened with. Ukraine has been caught in a tug of war, pulled between two sides that covet it: the United States and its European and Canadian allies to the west and Russia to the east. But after the war, Ukraine may find itself alone, abandoned by and disappointed in the West and with bitter memories of and animosity against the east.

In 2014, Ukrainian nationalists came to the conclusion that elections could no longer be trusted to deliver their monist vision of Ukraine in which the language, culture, and religion of the country’s ethnic Russian citizens had to be erased. So, for the first time in Ukraine’s history, they reversed an election with a coup. The central goal of that coup was to end Ukraine’s multivector foreign policy that balanced relations with Europe and Russia.

Reorienting toward the West meant economic cooperation with Europe and membership in the European Union. That political and economic goal was twinned with the security goal of membership in NATO. Membership in both was promised to Ukraine, and the West encouraged Ukraine to go on fighting Russia after its 2022 invasion, rather than negotiating a peace, in defense of its right to pursue those memberships. The war, the U.S. State Department explained at the beginning of the invasion, is “bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine.” It is about “core principles,” specifically, the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy, has a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships, and what orientation it wishes to direct its gaze.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives have been destroyed in pursuit of those promises and goals. When the war finally ends, Ukrainians will have to rebuild their lives and rebuild their country. But the odds are good that their country will not be in the EU nor in NATO. If Ukraine faces west, they will find themselves abandoned and alone.

Russia long ago dropped its objection to Ukraine joining the EU, yet the path has not truly been cleared because the EU has refused to drop its own objections. Though most European leaders say they “strongly support” Kiev’s accession to the European Union, numerous problems including Ukrainian corruption and the country’s democratic deficit have thrown up roadblocks to membership.

Dreams of fast-tracking Ukraine’s EU membership have been dashed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s demands for membership by 2027 have been revised to  realistic targets like 2035. Proposed compromises like “membership light” or “reverse enlargement” have gone nowhere. France and Germany have blocked them, and the plans never had the support of most member states.

Relations between Ukraine and Poland continue to deteriorate over Ukraine’s insistence on honoring its ultranationalist element, whose lineage traces back to groups that participated in the mass killing of Poles in the Second World War. Hungary, even after the ouster of its populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban, continues to block Ukraine’s accession over its treatment of Hungarian minorities.

Promises of NATO membership lie even shattered. “Irreversible paths” and bridges have been promised to Ukraine, but walking the path has been prohibited and the bridge has never been built. Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump have both denied Ukraine membership in NATO. Biden said that “the likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely” and that “Ukraine isn’t ready for NATO membership.” Trump said there would be “no going into NATO by Ukraine.” Ukraine’s European friends have said the same. Germany’s then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership is “not even on the agenda.” Point number seven of Trump’s 28-point peace plan states that “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.”

Zelensky long ago said “it must be acknowledged” that Ukraine “cannot enter” the “supposedly open” NATO door and that, though “publicly, the doors remain open,” in reality, Ukraine is “not going to be a NATO member.”

At the end of the war, Ukraine will be left to face a West that has grown reluctant to fund its economic reconstruction and that declines to extend an invasion to join its political and security unions. Ukraine, at that point, may turn to an unlikely option: Russia.

It will not be easy or smooth. But Geoffrey Roberts, professor emeritus of history at University College Cork, has recently suggested that, after the war, the best friend that Ukraine is going to have is Russia and the Russian people. That is where Ukraine’s ultimate future lies: in reconstructing its relationship with Russia. While immensely difficult, it represents the only viable long-term path for the Ukrainian people.

Russia has continued to frame the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation and not a people to be devastated or destroyed. Acknowledging that fact is not to excuse Russia’s invasion nor the devastation it has caused. It is to suggest that Russia’s goal may have been to stop Ukraine from being used as a military bridgehead on Russia’s border and that, to do this, Russia focused on the Ukrainian armed forces and not the Ukrainian people.

Nicolai Petro, professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island, tells the unexpected story that, during direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, “to the astonishment of the Europeans present” the Russian and Ukrainian delegates “started to make jokes and to get along. Because essentially, they understood each other better—far better—than either of them understood the Europeans.”

Any turn to the east will take time. But Ukraine’s natural future may lie in repaired relations with Russia. That may be necessitated by closed doors to the west and smoothed by shared language and family ties as well as commonalities of religion, culture, and history with Russia.

Two factors could determine if this reconstructed relationship is possible. The first is the trajectory of the war. Ukraine and Russia are unlikely to mend relations if “the war is fought to a finish, involving Ukrainian societal as well as military collapse, including large-scale civilian casualties,” Roberts told The American Conservative. But relations between the two countries could recover if “a negotiated settlement saves Ukraine’s statehood, provides for its future security, and supports its postwar reconstruction.” That recovery could be hastened and strengthened if Russia becomes a primary partner in reconstruction and if future trade relations are built into a settlement.

The second factor is who leads Ukraine after the war. After nourishing the people of Ukraine throughout the war with maximalist promises of recovering all of its territory and gaining membership in NATO, Zelensky may find it difficult to sign a peace deal that accomplishes none of that and, over, allows the possibility of warmer relations with Russia in the future.

But polls suggest that Zelensky may not be the leader after Ukraine is able to hold presidential elections. And both his two main rivals, Valeriy Zaluzhny and Kyrylo Budanov, may be likely to negotiate such a peace. Budanov has said recently that he is “ready for any step that will end the war,” and in office he maintained dialogue with Igor Kostyukov, the head of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency.

At the end of the war, a devastated Ukraine will need somewhere to turn. With the long-promised door to the west closed, the badly-frayed but natural connection to Russia may be the only viable direction in which Ukraine can turn.

Original article: theamericanconservative.com