The West keeps ignoring Russia's core demands
Reading Western news reports and listening to Western politicians, it is hard not to get the impression that the Ukraine War is about Russian expansionism. But although Russia has refused to return territory once it has taken the step of annexation, Russia’s core demand has always been an end to Ukraine’s anti-Russian policies.
The most important elements of this demand are:
Restoration of language rights for Russian speakers in Ukraine
Freedom of religion — including for the Russian Orthodox Church
A ban on neo-Nazi movements
No NATO membership for Ukraine
None of these points should be controversial.
Linguistic rights and religious freedom have been core Western principles for a very long time, and it is puzzling to see it making exceptions in the cases of Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Several Western countries ban neo-Nazi movements without controversy. Given that Ukraine’s neo-Nazis have a history of threatening politicians who ignore their demands — and that they are not shy about using violence — a ban on them seems no more than logical.
A little more than a decade ago, opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Ukrainians were against NATO membership. That didn’t stop NATO from inviting Ukraine to become a member. Its present popularity is mainly the result of the conflict that it caused with its aggressive courting. In the process NATO has disqualified itself as a maintainer of peace.
Territorial demands have always played a minor role among Russia's demands.
It became clear in 2014 that the new regime after the Maidan revolution planned to expel the Russian navy from its base in Crimea to replace it with American forces. It was also clear that this revolution was not popular in Crimea. Furthermore, in both Crimea and Russia, the 1954 transfer of Crimea to Ukraine had always remained controversial. This was the context in which Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. While the step may have been controversial under international law, a clear majority (80–90%) of the population supported it. In the present climate where Ukrainian politicians promote hatred against the Russian language and culture and some even have called for an ethnic cleansing of Crimea a return of that region under Ukrainian control is not a credible option.
Russia supported the uprising in Eastern Ukraine, where most people also disliked the Maidan revolution. However, the people there were less enthusiastic about being absorbed into Russia. As soon as that became clear, Russia made it clear that annexation was not the goal and that the end result should be an agreement with Kyiv. That was also the content of the Minsk Agreements. Had Ukraine honored its part of those agreements (granting autonomy to the Eastern regions), the conflict would now be over, and the Donbas would again be part of Ukraine.
On the eve of the war, Russia recognized the independence of the DPR and the LPR. This was necessary in order to establish a legal base under international law to support them if they were attacked by Ukraine. As these regions were not viable as independent states, this still left the door open for their eventual reintegration into Ukraine.
In September 2022, Russia changed course and annexed not only Donetsk and Luhansk but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This was mainly motivated by concerns about governability. Ukraine’s policies aimed to make it difficult for Russia to rule those regions by promoting “resistance” (terrorism) and by using a very broad definition of “collaboration” that discouraged citizens from contributing to their community. Annexation enabled Russia to offer an alternative.
Russian nationalists would love to annex other Russian-speaking Ukrainian regions such as Kharkiv and Odesa, but since Russia controls hardly any territory there, there was no reason to annex them. Russia’s demands are not driven by nationalist greed.
In Alaska, Russia’s territorial demands did not extend far beyond freezing the front lines:
Russians and Ukrainians are dying in the war. Unlike for the Machiavellian Europeans and Americans, this conflict has for Russia a personal aspect — its sons and brothers are dying — and Russia wants to end that.
Since the Yugoslav wars, the international principle has been that provincial borders should be respected when they become international borders. That is why the whole of those four regions was annexed, even though Russia did not control all of the territory. But if Western countries — who established this principle — are willing to ignore it, Russia is prepared to do the same.
Russia made an exception by demanding the whole of the Donetsk region, including the key cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. There are several reasons for this:
Russia is on the verge of conquering Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka in this region. A peace deal now would allow Ukraine to keep and reinforce those cities, which would be to Ukraine’s advantage.
Russia remembers how, after the Minsk Agreements, Ukraine frequently shelled Russian-held territories from fortified positions. Ukraine has similar positions near Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Pushing Ukraine beyond those positions will make it much harder for it to continue shelling, as the terrain is relatively open with few places to hide.
Keeping Kramatorsk and Sloviansk under Ukrainian control gives Ukraine a foothold in the Donbas and a possible opportunity to later expand its control. Full Russian control of the Donbas would create a more natural border that could serve as the basis for a stable peace.
The uprising against the Maidan began in Sloviansk in 2014, giving it symbolic value.
Ukraine has previously violated a peace agreement. Territorial loss would serve as a kind of punishment. A semi-voluntary retreat would also highlight that Ukraine has lost the war. The point here is not to humiliate Ukraine but to discourage future Ukrainian hotheads who might want to start the war again.
The core Russian demands are so logical that the West should push for them even when there was no war. It is time that we realize that.