The Munich Security Conference reveals one tiresome cliché annually: There is always somebody who compares the discussions at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof with the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Adolf Hitler to annex a region of Czechoslovakia.
This time, it was ex-President Petro Poroshenko’s party that couldn’t help juxtaposing the Munich Agreement with the plan “Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region,” a brochure that was distributed during the conference. Surprisingly enough, it is the former president of Ukraine who gets the main political benefit from a failed attempt of retired politicians to think about peace between Ukraine and Russia.
The “12 Steps” is a cocktail of rational proposals mixed with unlikely ideas and Russian clichés from the international conflicts menu. The Ukrainians mostly dislike points eight and 12: One aims to determine what steps can lead to the alleviation of Russia’s sanctions burden, and the other proposes to launch a new discussion about Ukraine’s identity, inviting neighboring countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Russia to participate.
The provocation with the presentation of the “12 Steps” succeeded first of all in the information sphere. Politicians who resigned from their positions tend to suffer from oblivion. As a former lawmaker, I experienced it myself. That is why, from time to time, they unite in different interest groups and share their thoughts about the world structure with the public.
Often such leaflets remain on the desks and don’t experience any popularity. Today’s opinion leaders do not have time to read more than one page of text. And if there is no bright picture or diagram in the text, chances to reach the target audience are even lower.
Had it not been for the “12 Steps” plan, the Munich 2020 Security Conference would have been just a traditional meeting on international politics. It often boils down to the fact that all participants admit there is a crisis, after which they travel to their capitals with several photos on stage and selfies on the sidelines.
The “12 Steps” plan, prepared by three international and one Russian non-governmental organization, had every chance to be forgotten. However, the authors, along with rational thoughts, suggested some unacceptable ideas — such as the search for the national identity of Ukraine together with its neighboring countries. No self-respecting country would accept such a scenario. This put an end to any discussion on other points, although now no one would say that the document went unnoticed.
I shall confess that I’m a member of one of the organizations — the European Leadership Network — whose leader signed the 12 Steps plan. This document (or its preparation) was never discussed at the meetings with the members of the Contact Group on Russia-West Relations, where I participated.
On my way to Kyiv, I met one of the signatories, who revealed that the “12 Steps” plan was an idea voiced by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), created by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. NTI has engaged several friendly organizations, including the Munich Security Conference and the Russian Council for Foreign Affairs. The document was prepared in two rounds with the initial text drafted in Helsinki and approved in London late last year.
The signatory I talked to found the feedback the “12 Steps” had received in Ukraine frustrating. The plan was written out as reflections of several analytical organizations. None of them represent the government of any country. This means that everything that was written can only be perceived as a private opinion. However, once in the Ukrainian information mainstream, the document was labeled as unacceptable, presented almost like a secret scenario.
The problem is these scenarios are written by people who know about the war in the Donbas from front-page photos and stories prepared by journalists from Moscow or Warsaw bureaus who travel to Kyiv. But some of them have never even been to Ukraine. Therefore, the best reaction to this kind of “creativity” is to adequately perceive it as the reflections of theorists and try not to look too hard for deep insights. Sometimes a banana is just a banana, not a secret conspiracy.
However, Poroshenko decided to squeeze out maximum dividends for himself from this situation. He uses it more actively than others to inflate hysteria and increase the suffering of his supporters in connection with his defeat in the 2019 presidential elections.
Poroshenko wants to attack his opponent, President Volodymyr Zelensky, with this plan. He is trying to convince the Ukrainian voter that as soon as Poroshenko stepped down, Ukraine became closer to lifting sanctions and losing sympathy with the West.
In fact, Russia’s return to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was already predetermined during Poroshenko’s rule. At the same time, the search for a way out of the bloody conflict began, which automatically reduced global public attention.
Poroshenko criticized the document and exaggerated its importance: “This document was written in the Kremlin and it works against Ukraine. We made great efforts to mobilize European and American politicians, and remove it (from the agenda),” he said in Munich.
First of all, I’m far from the idea that this document was written by the Kremlin. Some of the signatories are committed to a joint position with Russia, some are simply ready for peace at any cost, some simply didn’t pay attention to all 12 points. Adding to the debate, the Atlantic Council issued a paper criticizing this particular report.
Secondly, Poroshenko’s very attempt to show his decisive role in opposing the document looked comical. In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Poroshenko bragged that it was thanks to his efforts that the plan was removed from the conference’s website. However, Poroshenko did not comment on the fact that the next day it was back online and is available today.
At the end of the day, neither the Ukrainian government, nor the opposition, nor Poroshenko is offering their own scenario to end the war. And that is why the vacuum is being filled by everyone else, but not by the Ukrainians themselves. And that is why I agree with the head of the International Renaissance Foundation, Oleksandr Sushko, who believes that the main conclusion from the “12 Steps” is the lack of a Ukrainian vision of what the resolution of the conflict in Donbas should look like.
Sergii Leshchenko is a former Ukrainian lawmaker and investigative journalist who writes columns for the Kyiv Post. This column was translated into English by Kyiv Post staff writer Olena Goncharova.
