就俄-烏戰爭致傑弗裏·薩克斯的公開信

就俄羅斯-烏克蘭戰爭致傑弗裏·薩克斯的公開信

尤裏·戈羅德尼琴科 (Yuriy Gorodnichenko)，經濟學教授 | 2023 年 3 月 20 日

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the- Russia-ukraine-war/?

親愛的薩克斯博士，

我們是一群經濟學家，其中包括許多烏克蘭人，他們對您關於俄羅斯對烏克蘭戰爭的言論感到震驚，並被迫寫這封公開信來解決您的論點中的一些曆史歪曲和邏輯謬誤。 在您多次出現在俄羅斯主要宣傳家之一弗拉基米爾·索洛維約夫的脫口秀節目中（除了呼籲將烏克蘭城市從地球上抹去外，他還呼籲對北約國家進行核打擊），我們回顧了您的專欄文章 在您的個人網站上，注意到一些重複出現的模式。接下來，我們希望向您指出這些不實陳述以及我們的簡短回應。

國際刑事法院法官對弗拉基米爾·弗拉基米羅維奇·普京發出逮捕令

模式一：否認烏克蘭的代理權

在您 2023 年 1 月 10 日的文章《新世界經濟》中，您寫道："畢竟，正是美國試圖將北約擴大到格魯吉亞和烏克蘭，引發了格魯吉亞（2010 年）和烏克蘭（2014年）的戰爭 直到今天）。”同樣，您在 2023年2月13日發表的文章《烏克蘭需要向阿富汗學習什麽》中寫道：“烏克蘭的代理戰爭始於九年前，當時美國政府支持推翻烏克蘭總統維克托·亞努科維奇。 從美國的角度來看，亞努科維奇的罪過是他試圖維持烏克蘭的中立，盡管美國希望將北約擴大到包括烏克蘭（和格魯吉亞）。”

讓我們澄清一下2013年至2014年的曆史事件，您在上述錯誤言論中暗示：親歐盟示威與北約和美國無關。 最初的抗議是由維克多·亞努科維奇決定不簽署《歐盟-烏克蘭聯合協議》引發的，盡管該協議已在烏克蘭議會以壓倒性多數獲得通過並得到烏克蘭民眾的廣泛支持。 2013年11月30日晚，亞努科維奇政權選擇殘酷毆打和平抗議者（主要是學生）作為回應，這隻進一步疏遠了民眾並加劇了抗議活動。 亞努科維奇於 2014 年 1 月通過一套禁止新聞和集會自由的法律（通常稱為“獨裁法”)後，親歐盟示威變成了一場更廣泛的運動，反對政府濫用權力和腐敗、警察暴行和人權。 侵犯權利——我們現在稱之為尊嚴革命。 烏克蘭加入北約從來都不是該運動的目標。 因此，你試圖將戰爭的開始追溯到“北約”，這在曆史上是不準確的。此外，將烏克蘭視為美國地緣政治棋盤上的一顆棋子，對數百萬在尊嚴革命中冒著生命危險的烏克蘭人來說是一記耳光。

模式#2：北約挑釁俄羅斯

您反複強調北約的擴張激怒了俄羅斯（例如，"北約不應該擴大，因為這威脅到俄羅斯的安全", 摘自您 2023年2月27日在《紐約客》上接受艾薩克·喬蒂納的采訪）。

我們想提醒您注意一些事實。1939年，蘇聯和納粹德國入侵波蘭。1940年，蘇聯入侵波羅的海國家。1940年，蘇聯吞並了羅馬尼亞的部分地區。1956年，蘇聯入侵匈牙利。 1968年，蘇聯入侵捷克斯洛伐克。波蘭、愛沙尼亞、立陶宛、拉脫維亞、羅馬尼亞、匈牙利或捷克斯洛伐克沒有入侵俄羅斯或蘇聯。 這些國家沒有發出任何威脅。 但這些國家受到了蘇聯/俄羅斯的攻擊。 這就是這些國家想要加入北約的原因。 自從加入北約以來，這些國家都沒有再受到俄羅斯的襲擊。

就像這些國家一樣，烏克蘭（在俄羅斯對其進行軍事侵略之前，2013年的軍事預算僅為 29億美元）希望擁有安全與和平。它不想再次受到俄羅斯的攻擊（俄羅斯2013年的軍事預算為680億美元）。鑒於烏克蘭於1994年同意放棄核武器以換取美國、英國和俄羅斯（！）的安全“保證”，並沒有阻止俄羅斯的侵略，目前唯一可信的保證就是加入北約。

我們還想提請你注意，芬蘭和瑞典為應對俄羅斯的侵略而申請加入北約，但俄羅斯並沒有抱怨這兩個國家加入北約。您似乎也並不特別關心這兩個國家加入北約。對烏克蘭與芬蘭/瑞典的這種區別對待使“勢力範圍”合法化，這一概念似乎適合帝國時代，而不適合現代。

模式#3：否認烏克蘭的主權完整

在您接受《現在民主！》采訪時2022年12月6日，您說：“所以，我的觀點是，[……]克裏米亞在曆史上一直是，並且在未來實際上，至少是事實上的俄羅斯。”

我們想提醒大家，俄羅斯 2014年吞並克裏米亞違反了《布達佩斯備忘錄》（俄羅斯在其中承諾尊重和保護包括克裏米亞在內的烏克蘭邊界）和《友好、夥伴關係與合作條約》（俄羅斯於 1997 年與烏克蘭簽署） 相同的承諾），並且根據聯合國國際法院的命令，它違反了國際法。 作為聯合國安理會常任理事國，俄羅斯本應維護和平，但俄羅斯卻違反了聯合國的基本原則（《聯合國憲章》第二條：“各會員國在國際關係中不得威脅或使用武力”）。 武力侵犯任何國家的領土完整或政治獨立，或以任何其他不符合聯合國宗旨的方式。”）。 事實上，正如肯尼亞駐聯合國大使在其著名演講中所強調的那樣，二戰後的整個世界安全架構都基於這樣的假設：國家邊界（無論曆史背景如何）不能為了維護和平而通過武力改變。 如果允許一個核國家隨意吞並別國領土，那麽世界上沒有一個國家會感到安全。

通過堅持俄羅斯可以保留克裏米亞，你隱含著一個假設：如果允許俄羅斯這樣做，它將讓烏克蘭其他地區保持和平。 然而，這顯然不是事實，因為俄羅斯在 2014 年至 2022 年期間對克裏米亞的“事實上”所有權並沒有阻止其當前的侵略。 普京的目標是“最終解決烏克蘭問題”，即徹底摧毀烏克蘭並吞並其全部領土。 因此，吞並克裏米亞並沒有“恢複曆史正義”——他隻是為進一步軍事打擊烏克蘭準備了跳板。 因此，恢複烏克蘭對其整個領土的控製不僅對烏克蘭的安全至關重要，而且對所有其他國家的安全也至關重要（通過強化侵略者不應該掠奪土地而逃脫懲罰的教訓！）。

此外，您還表示“俄羅斯肯定永遠不會在烏克蘭接受北約”。供您參考，《聯合國憲章》強調人民自決是一項關鍵原則。 俄羅斯不應該決定烏克蘭加入或不加入哪些聯盟或聯盟。 烏克蘭有自己的民主選舉政府（不是像俄羅斯那樣的獨裁政府），該政府在與烏克蘭人民協商後將決定烏克蘭是否加入北約。 同樣，北約國家完全有權自行決定歡迎誰加入其聯盟。

模式#4：推進克裏姆林宮的和平計劃

在上述文章“烏克蘭需要向阿富汗學習什麽”中，您寫道：“和平的基礎是明確的。烏克蘭將是一個中立的非北約國家。克裏米亞仍將是俄羅斯黑海海軍艦隊的所在地，自1783年以來一直如此。將為頓巴斯找到切實可行的解決方案，例如領土劃分、自治或停戰線。

雖然你的建議與俄羅斯宣傳人員的建議完全一致，但從烏克蘭的角度來看，它沒有回答一個關鍵問題：基於什麽證據，你相信一個多次聲稱烏克蘭不存在的連環戰爭販子會感到滿意？ 克裏米亞和頓巴斯不是試圖占領整個國家嗎？ 在你找到這個問題令人信服的答案之前，我們懇請你參考澤連斯基總統提出並得到烏克蘭人民全力支持的十點和平計劃。 反駁克裏姆林宮的“和平計劃”隻會延長烏克蘭人民的痛苦。

如果烏克蘭在2021年12月或2022年3月向普京提供克裏米亞和頓巴斯，那麽“戰鬥就會停止，俄羅斯軍隊將離開烏克蘭，烏克蘭的主權將得到聯合國安理會和其他國家的保障”，這隻是一廂情願的想法。 2022年初的和平談判破裂並不是因為美國不存在幹預，而是因為俄羅斯要求烏克蘭無條件投降（現在仍然如此！）。請記住，俄羅斯在烏克蘭的目標是“非軍事化和去納粹化”。普京的政治顧問之一蒂莫費·謝爾蓋采夫在他的文章《俄羅斯應該如何對待烏克蘭？》中解釋了“去納粹化”的含義。 在那裏，他主張對烏克蘭國家進行殘酷的破壞，包括殺害數百萬人並對其他人進行“再教育”。 俄羅斯人已經開始在烏克蘭被占領土實施這些計劃。

我們建議你閱讀謝爾蓋采夫的全文，但有幾段文字清楚地表明了他的意思：“一個正在去納粹化的國家不能擁有主權”，"去納粹化將不可避免地包括去烏克蘭化——拒絕大規模人為的 蘇聯當局發起的曆史上的小俄羅斯和新俄羅斯領土人口自我認同中種族成分的膨脹”，“烏克蘭的去納粹化意味著其不可避免的去歐洲化”，[去納粹化意味著......]“奪取 教育材料並禁止各級教育項目包含納粹意識形態指導”（謝爾蓋采夫在他的文章中多次稱烏克蘭人為“納粹”）。

你似乎沒有意識到，與這種言論一致，俄羅斯犯下了聯合國和許多其他組織記錄的可怕的戰爭罪行。 我們無法從俄羅斯持續的暴行中看出任何真正對和平感興趣的跡象。

我們敦促你重新評估你的立場，認為俄羅斯有興趣進行善意的和平談判。

模式#5。 將烏克蘭描繪成一個分裂的國家

在《烏克蘭需要向阿富汗學習什麽》一書中，您還指出，“美國忽視了烏克蘭的兩個嚴峻的政治現實。 首先，烏克蘭在種族和政治上存在深刻的分歧：烏克蘭西部的仇恨俄羅斯的民族主義者與烏克蘭東部和克裏米亞的俄羅斯族。”

這一聲明呼應了俄羅斯在 2004年總統選舉期間首次使用的政治技術，至今俄羅斯人仍在使用它來為烏克蘭“去納粹化”辯護。我們鼓勵您看看實際的經驗事實和曆史。

1991年，烏克蘭所有地區投票支持獨立。 包括克裏米亞。

根據2001年人口普查（烏克蘭現有的自我認定種族的最新數據），除克裏米亞外，烏克蘭人口在烏克蘭所有地區占多數。 當我們談論克裏米亞時，我們應該問為什麽它有這樣的民族成分。 該國人口中俄羅斯人占多數，原因是自 1783年首次被俄羅斯占領以來，一直到 1944年克裏米亞韃靼人被驅逐到蘇聯偏遠地區，發生了一係列種族滅絕和驅逐。 克裏米亞的土著居民被驅逐、殺害，並被俄羅斯人取代。 俄羅斯在對烏克蘭人的幾次種族滅絕中也使用了類似的策略——例如，在 1932-33年的大饑荒期間，俄羅斯人來到死於饑荒的烏克蘭人的房子裏。 今天，在當前的戰爭中，俄羅斯正在使用同樣的人口替代策略：驅逐烏克蘭人口，強行收養烏克蘭兒童，或者在強行將他們與家人分開後對他們進行“再教育”（洗腦）。

除了清洗烏克蘭人和其他土著居民外，俄羅斯還使用了“軟”策略，例如俄羅斯化，即阻止在所有領域學習和使用烏克蘭語言。 俄羅斯化已經持續了幾個世紀。 它的手段相當多樣化——從通過派遣烏克蘭人到俄羅斯工作和派遣俄羅斯人到烏克蘭學習或工作來“混合”人們，到讓說烏克蘭語的人幾乎不可能進入大學，到將烏克蘭語言和文化視為落後。 比“偉大的俄羅斯文化”還不如竊取烏克蘭文化遺產（例如，直到現在世界博物館才開始正確地將俄羅斯展示的烏克蘭藝術家識別為俄羅斯人，從2014年起，尤其是在 去年）。 因此，尖銳的語言討論是對俄羅斯曆史上壓製恢複烏克蘭語言權利的企圖的自然反應。 盡管有這段壓迫曆史，烏克蘭人還是逐漸轉向烏克蘭語，而俄羅斯的全麵入侵加劇了這一進程。

最近的民意調查顯示，無論語言或地點如何，絕大多數烏克蘭人（80%）拒絕向俄羅斯讓步領土。民意調查還顯示，85%的烏克蘭人首先將自己視為烏克蘭公民，而不是其所在地區的居民、少數民族代表或其他一些身份標識。這在一個分裂的國家裏幾乎是不可能的。

總之，我們歡迎您對烏克蘭感興趣。然而，如果你的目標是提供幫助並就如何結束戰爭提出建設性建議，我們認為這個目標無法實現。你們的幹預歪曲了俄羅斯入侵的起源和意圖，混合了事實和主觀解釋，並傳播了克裏姆林宮的敘述。烏克蘭不是地緣政治棋子或分裂國家，烏克蘭有權決定自己的未來，烏克蘭自1991年獲得獨立以來沒有攻擊過任何國家。俄羅斯的侵略戰爭沒有任何道理。 明確的道德指南針、對國際法的尊重以及對烏克蘭曆史的堅定理解應該成為任何爭取公正和平的討論的決定性原則。

Open letter to Jeffrey Sachs on the Russia-Ukraine war

Yuriy Gorodnichenko, professor of economics | March 20, 2023

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/?

Dear Dr. Sachs,

We are a group of economists, including many Ukrainians, who were appalled by your statements on the Russian war against Ukraine and were compelled to write this open letter to address some of the historical misrepresentations and logical fallacies in your line of argument. Following your repeated appearances on the talk shows of one of the chief Russian propagandists, Vladimir Solovyov (apart from calling to wipe Ukrainian cities off the face of the earth, he called for nuclear strikes against NATO countries), we have reviewed the op-eds on your personal website and noticed several recurring patterns. In what follows, we wish to point out these misrepresentations to you, alongside our brief response.

ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin

Pattern #1: Denying the agency of Ukraine

In your article “The New World Economy” from January 10, 2023, you write: “It was, after all, the US attempt to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine that triggered the wars in Georgia (in 2010) and in Ukraine (2014 until today).” Similarly, in your article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan” from February 13, 2023, you write: “The proxy war in Ukraine began nine years ago when the US government backed the overthrow of Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych’s sin from the US viewpoint was his attempt to maintain Ukraine’s neutrality despite the US desire to expand NATO to include Ukraine (and Georgia).”

Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, at which you hint in the aforementioned misinformative statements: The Euromaidan had nothing to do with NATO, nor the US. Initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population. Yanukovych’s regime’s choice to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013, only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the  “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.

Pattern #2: NATO provoked Russia 

You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).

We want to alert you to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. But these countries were attacked by the USSR/Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.

Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.

We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland/Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires and not for the modern era.

Pattern #3: Denying Ukraine’s sovereign integrity

In your interview to Democracy Now! on December 6, 2022, you said: “So, my view is that […] Crimea has been historically, and will be in the future, effectively, at least de facto Russian.”

We wish to remind you that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated international law. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia was supposed to protect peace, but instead Russia violated the foundational principle of the UN (Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”). Indeed, the entire world security architecture after WWII is based on the assumption that country borders (regardless of historical background) cannot be changed by force in order to preserve peace, as Kenya UN ambassador highlighted in his famous speech. If a nuclear power is allowed to annex territories of another country as it wishes, then no country in the world can feel safe.

By insisting that Russia can keep Crimea, you are making an implicit assumption that if Russia is allowed to do that, it will leave the rest of Ukraine in peace. However, this is demonstrably not true, as Russia’s “de facto” ownership of Crimea over 2014–2022 did nothing to preclude its current aggression. The aim of Putin is to “ultimately solve the Ukrainian question,” i.e. to completely destroy Ukraine and annex its entire territory. Thus, by annexing Crimea he did not “restore the historical justice” — he just prepared a springboard for further military attacks on Ukraine. Therefore, restoring Ukraine’s control over its entire territory is crucial not only for the security of Ukraine but also for the security of all other nations (by reinforcing the lesson that aggressors should not get away with land grabs!).

Also, you state that “Russia certainly will never accept NATO in Ukraine.” For your information, the UN Charter emphasizes the self-determination of peoples as a key principle. It’s not for Russia to decide what alliances or unions Ukraine will or will not join. Ukraine has its own democratically-elected government (not a dictatorship, like in Russia), and this government, after consultation with Ukrainian people, will decide whether Ukraine will or will not join NATO. Likewise, NATO countries have every right to decide for themselves whom they would like to welcome in their alliance.

Pattern #4: Pushing forward Kremlin’s peace plans

In the aforementioned article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan,” you write: “The basis for peace is clear. Ukraine would be a neutral non-NATO country. Crimea would remain home to Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet, as it has been since 1783. A practical solution would be found for the Donbas, such as a territorial division, autonomy, or an armistice line.”

While your suggestion is perfectly aligned with that of Russian propagandists, it leaves unanswered the key question from the Ukrainian perspective: Based on what evidence do you trust a serial warmonger, who has stated on multiple occasions that Ukraine does not exist, to be satisfied with Crimea and Donbas and not try to occupy the entire country? Until you find a convincing answer to this question, we would kindly ask you to refer to the 10-point peace plan proposed by President Zelensky and fully backed up by the Ukrainian people. Regurgitating Kremlin’s “peace plans” would only prolong the suffering of Ukrainian people.

Writing that if Ukraine offered Putin Crimea and Donbas in December 2021 or March 2022 then “the fighting would stop, Russian troops would leave Ukraine, and Ukraine’s sovereignty would be guaranteed by the UN Security Council and other nations” is just wishful thinking. Peace negotiations in early 2022 broke down not because of non-existent US intervention but because Russia demanded unconditional capitulation of Ukraine (and it still does!). Remember that Russia’s goals in Ukraine were “demilitarization and denazification”. What “denazification” means was explained by one of Putin’s political advisors, Timofey Sergeitsev, in his piece “What Russia should do with Ukraine?” There, he argued for the brutal destruction of the Ukrainian nation involving killing millions of people and “re-educating” others. Russians already started implementing these plans in the occupied territories of Ukraine.

We suggest that you read the entire text by Sergeitsev’s, but a few passages clearly show what he means: “a country that is being denazified cannot possess sovereignty,” “Denazification will inevitably include de-ukrainization — the rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic component in the self-identification of the population of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya territories, which was started by the Soviet authorities”, “denazification of Ukraine means its inevitable de-europeanization”, [denazification implies…] “the seizure of educational materials and the prohibition of educational programs at all levels that contain Nazi ideological guidelines” (in his article, Sergeitsev repeatedly calls Ukrainians “Nazis”).

You seem to be unaware that, consistent with this rhetoric, Russia commits horrendous war crimes as documented by the UN and many others. We fail to discern any indication of a genuine interest in peace from the ongoing  Russian atrocities.

We urge you to reevaluate your stance on thinking that Russia is interested in good-faith peace talks.

 

Pattern #5. Presenting Ukraine as a divided country

In “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan,” you also state that “The US overlooked two harsh political realities in Ukraine. The first is that Ukraine is deeply divided ethnically and politically between Russia-hating nationalists in western Ukraine and ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.”

This statement echoes a Russian political technology first applied during 2004 presidential elections and still used by Russians to justify the “denazification” of Ukraine today. We encourage you to take a look at the actual empirical facts and history.

In 1991, all regions of Ukraine voted for independence. Including Crimea.

According to the 2001 Census (the latest data on self-identified ethnicity available for Ukraine), Ukrainian population is the majority in all the regions of Ukraine, except for Crimea. And when we speak about Crimea, we should ask why it has the ethnic composition which it has. It has a Russian majority because of a series of genocides and deportations starting from its first occupation by Russia in 1783 and as recently as 1944 when Crimean Tatars were deported to remote parts of the Soviet Union. Crimea’s indigenous population was deported, killed, and replaced by Russians. A similar tactic was used by Russia during its several genocides of Ukrainians — for example, during the Great Famine of 1932–33, Russians arrived to live in the houses of Ukrainians who died of famine. Russia is using the same tactics of population replacement today, in the current war: it deports the Ukrainian population, forcefully adopts Ukrainian children or “re-educates” (brainwashes) them after forcefully parting them with their families.

Besides cleansing Ukrainian and other indigenous populations, Russia used “softer” tactics, such as Russification, i.e. discouraging the learning and usage of the Ukrainian language in all spheres. Russification has been ongoing for centuries. Its instruments have been quite diverse — from “mixing” people by sending Ukrainians to work to Russia and sending Russians to study or work in Ukraine, to making it close to impossible for Ukrainian speakers to enter universities, to representing Ukrainian language and culture as backward and inferior to the “great Russian culture,” to stealing Ukrainian cultural heritage (e.g. only now world museums started to correctly identify Ukrainian artists presented by Russia as Russian, and hundreds of thousands of artifacts have looted from Ukrainian museums from 2014 and especially during the last year). Thus, the acute language discussions are a natural response to Russia’s historical attempts to suppress any restoration of rights of the Ukrainian language. Despite this history of oppression, Ukrainians have been gradually switching to Ukrainian, and the Russian full-scale invasion intensified this process.

Recent polls show that irrespective of language or location, Ukrainians overwhelmingly (80%) reject territorial concessions to Russia. Polls also show that 85 percent of Ukrainians identify themselves above all as citizens of Ukraine, as opposed to residents of their region, representatives of an ethnic minority, or some other identifier. This is hardly possible in a divided country.

In summary, we welcome your interest in Ukraine. However, if your objective is to be helpful and to generate constructive proposals on how to end the war, we believe that this objective is not achieved. Your interventions present a distorted picture of the origins and intentions of the Russian invasion, mix facts and subjective interpretations, and propagate the Kremlin’s narratives. Ukraine is not a geopolitical pawn or a divided nation, Ukraine has the right to determine its own future, Ukraine has not attacked any country since gaining its independence in 1991. There is no justification for the Russian war of aggression. A clear moral compass, respect of international law, and a firm understanding of Ukraine’s history should be the defining principles for any discussions towards a just peace.