If I were a trader today, I would put forward a thesis that the conflict will last longer, while the conditions for action in Ukraine open up. That means investment. Opportunities to participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine will increase. Although war is the most significant factor in uncertainty, I will focus on what can be done in this country on a smaller scale.
From right, President Aleksandar Kwasniewski and Editor-in-Chief of BI Mikołaj Kunica
Yes maybe. Many arguments demonstrate that we are dealing with a war of many years, even a conflict of generations. One thing we know for sure: Russia is too weak to win this war, but at the same time strong enough to last it. Let Ukraine be strong enough to drive the Russians out of its territories and thus consider it mission accomplished. As it is, this conflict can be expected to last for a relatively long time. The level of hatred between Russians and Ukrainians is very high. I am sure it will take decades for the tension to subside.
History has to shout that this is not possible. I believe that a world taught by such overarching agreements, whether in pre-war Munich or post-World War II Yalta and Potsdam, must learn that this is simply unacceptable.
See also: This is how Putin will end up. “The Russians won’t believe it.”
Any peace settlement without Ukraine is unacceptable. Ukraine absolutely must be at the center of these negotiations. It cannot be done over the heads of Ukraine’s neighbors. I am thinking here mainly of Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries. Whatever form of negotiations is adopted, it must first take into account Ukraine and our region. These are common problems, the historical experience is very strong, and we need to shout loudly about it.
You have the experience of Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary joining NATO. How real is it that Kiev is knocking on NATO’s door in this dramatic situation, in a completely different situation than 20 years ago?
I believe that Ukraine has never been closer to NATO than it is now, it will be a member of the alliance, and many arguments prove it.
More text below the video
First, Ukraine has the right to expect strict security guarantees from the world after this occupation. No guarantee is more effective than NATO membership. If we propose another document to Ukraine, as in Budapest in 1994, Ukrainians have the right to say clearly: “We don’t believe in it, it’s just paper.” Being in NATO is one thing.
Second, Ukraine is already in the alliance. It already has one foot in NATO because it has NATO weapons and has agreed to NATO secrets.
A third argument relates to concerns about how Putin will react. After all, Putin has argued all along that he is against Ukraine’s presence in NATO because he wants to have some kind of buffer zone of countries around Russia.
Meanwhile, the border with NATO continues to stretch for him.
If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, why not Ukraine? There is also a very self-serving argument here. After this war, Ukraine will have the largest army in Europe. Well armed, very experienced and combative. It would be good to have such an army within NATO and next to it. It is in our common interest.
See also: Here are the six biggest mistakes of the Ukrainian military
My thesis is that Ukraine will join NATO before it joins the EU, which could happen relatively soon. The NATO leader’s visit to Kiev shows that this thinking is shared by practically all NATO countries, except Hungary. It would be great if a clear announcement was made in Vilnius in July, which might calm Putin down a bit.
I will not decide whether or not Ukraine will be in its territorial form before 2014, with or without Crimea. In my opinion, Ukraine, not controlling all its territories, should be in NATO.
A major challenge, primarily economic, is knocking on the EU’s door for Ukraine. It involves specific market issues and the opening up of a larger economy. Meanwhile, it is a country with a high level of corruption, highly oligarchic and, to put it mildly, with less democratic structures than are practiced by European standards.
So, this road to Union will be a bit longer. However, it should be remembered that Ukraine has made great progress in many areas over the past dozen or so years. Ironically, even during Yanukovych’s time.
During that time, I myself participated in the various works of the Union Agreement and saw how much progress was being made. Many things happened then. Decentralization of government, anti-corruption institutions, principles of market economy, reform of judiciary, role of prosecutor’s office in justice system are significant civilization. These things must continue.
War is not an easy time to reform the government, but the government works under war conditions, you can go to Kiev and come back, President Biden went there and came back, that means Ukraine is better. These structures work more than we often think.
You talk about oligarchy. true These post-Soviet economies developed to a high degree of oligarchy. But these oligarchs were badly shaken by this war. They no longer had the strength they had. Akhmedov had Azovstal in Mariupol, the ruins of which are piled up today. Besides, these oligarchs are very patriotic and rational. They support the military and spend money on humanitarian aid.
I think this war was the founding act of modern Ukraine.
Many changes that were previously difficult to implement could be implemented rapidly after the war only because of inertia and the post-Soviet mentality.
