●Insight
●
Our programs and centers deliver in-depth, highly relevant issue briefs and reports that break new ground, shift opinions, and set agendas on public policy, with a focus on advancing debates by integrating foundational research and analysis with concrete policy solutions.
●
When major global news breaks, the Atlantic Council’s experts have you covered—delivering their sharpest rapid insight and forward-looking analysis direct to your inbox.
●
New Atlanticist is where top experts and policymakers at the Atlantic Council and beyond offer exclusive insight on the most pressing global challenges—and the United States’ role in addressing them alongside its allies and partners.
●
A weekly column by Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe, Inflection Points focuses on the global challenges facing the United States and how to best address them.
●
UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture. UkraineAlert sources analysis and commentary from a wide-array of thought-leaders, politicians, experts, and activists from Ukraine and the global community.
●
MENASource offers the latest news from across the Middle East, combined with commentary by contributors, interviews with emerging players, multi-media content, and independent analysis from fellows and staff.
●
Econographics provides an in-depth look at trends in the global economy utilizing state-of-the-art data visualization tools.
●
●AfricaSource
●EnergySource
●GeoTech Cues
●IranSource
●TurkeySource
●Events
●
●
●
●ACTV
●Issues
●
●All Politics & Diplomacy
●Corruption
●Democratic Transitions
●Elections
●Freedom and Prosperity
●G20
●International Norms
●Media
●Political Reform
●Rule of Law
●International Organizations
●United Nations
●
●All Security & Defense
●Arms Control
●Conflict
●Defense Industry
●Defense Policy
●Defense Technologies
●Extremism
●Intelligence
●National Security
●NATO
●Non-Traditional Threats
●Nuclear Deterrence
●Nuclear Nonproliferation
●Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding
●Security Partnerships
●Terrorism
●
●All Economy & Business
●Digital Currencies
●Digital Policy
●Economic Sanctions
●Eurozone
●Financial Regulation
●Fiscal and Structural Reform
●Future of Work
●Inclusive Growth
●International Financial Institutions
●International Markets
●Macroeconomics
●Trade
●
●All Energy & Environment
●Climate Change & Climate Action
●Energy Markets & Governance
●Energy Transitions
●Geopolitics & Energy Security
●Nuclear Energy
●Oil & Gas
●Renewables & Advanced Energy
●
●All Resilience & Society
●Civil Society
●Coronavirus
●Education
●Human Rights
●Migration
●Nationalism
●Populism
●Resilience
●Women
●Youth
●
●All Technology & Innovation
●Cybersecurity
●Disinformation
●Drones
●Entrepreneurship
●Internet
●Internet of Things
●Space
●Regions
●
●All Africa
●Angola
●Democratic Republic of the Congo
●East Africa
●Eritrea
●Ethiopia
●General Africa
●Morocco
●Nigeria
●North & West Africa
●Sahel
●South & Central Africa
●South Africa
●Sudan
●Somalia
●
●All Americas
●United States and Canada
●Latin America
●Brazil
●Caribbean
●Colombia
●Cuba
●Mexico
●Northern Triangle
●Venezuela
●
●All Europe & Eurasia
●European Union
●The Balkans
●Belarus
●The Caucasus
●France
●Germany
●Greece
●Hungary
●Italy
●Moldova
●Poland
●Russia
●Turkey
●Ukraine
●United Kingdom
●
●All Indo-Pacific
●Afghanistan
●Australia
●Bangladesh
●China
●India
●Japan
●Korea
●Pakistan
●Taiwan
●
●All Middle East
●The Gulf
●North Africa
●Iran
●Iraq
●Israel
●Lebanon
●Libya
●Saudi Arabia
●Syria
●Yemen
●Experts
●
●
●About
●
●Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
●Adrienne Arsht – Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center
●Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center
●Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs
●Africa Center
●Digital Forensic Research Lab
●Eurasia Center
●Europe Center
●GeoEconomics Center
●GeoTech Center
●Global Energy Center
●Millennium Leadership Program
●South Asia Center
●Atlantic Council in Turkey
●Global China Hub
●Freedom and Prosperity Center
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●Donate
●Insight
●Issue briefs and reports
●Fast Thinking
●New Atlanticist
●Inflection Points
●UkraineAlert
●MENASource
●Econographics
●More sections
●Events
●Upcoming events
●AC Front Page
●Galas and flagship events
●ACTV
●Issues
●Politics & Diplomacy
●Security & Defense
●Economy & Business
●Energy & Environment
●Resilience & Society
●Technology & Innovation
●Regions
●Africa
●Americas
●Europe & Eurasia
●Indo-Pacific
●Middle East
●Experts
●Find an expert
●Request a media interview
●About
●Programs
●Visit or contact us
●About the Atlantic Council
●Diversity, equity, and inclusion
●Get involved
●Leadership & governance
●For media
●Subscribe by email
●Find job opportunities
●Donate
Russia
Ukraine
UkraineAlert
January 26, 2016
Not So Fast, Mr. Inozemtsev
By
John E. Herbst
Responding to an article that Ambassadors Steven Pifer, William Taylor, and I wrote in The New York Times advocating greater US and EU assistance to Ukraine, Vladislav Inozemtsev wrote a provocative article January 19 in which he makes the case that Kyiv should cede the occupied territories of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR), Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR), and Crimea to Russia as part of an overall settlement to end the war in Ukraine. Inozemtsev correctly notes that Moscow’s war in Donetsk and Luhansk has inflicted enormous damage on the people, infrastructure, and property of the Donbas. When Ukraine finally regains control of the territory of the DNR and LNR, it will need to spend tens of billions of dollars to repair the damage, and it will have the responsibility of reintegrating the people of the area who have suffered the trauma of war back into Ukrainian society. Let the Kremlin shoulder the expense and burden of managing the disaster that it created, Inozemtsev argues.
It would be a serious mistake for President Petro Poroshenko or the international community to accept this advice. Two cardinal principles of international law and practice are at stake: territorial integrity and a people’s right to self-determination. Since the seizure of Crimea, Kyiv has rightly maintained that its first goal in the conflict is the restoration of its territorial integrity. It must stick to its guns both in Crimea and the Donbas. In addition, despite massive Kremlin propaganda to the contrary, there is no credible evidence that a majority in either Crimea or the Peoples’ Republics want to leave Ukraine. During a referendum on independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, more than 80 percent in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts voted in favor. Polls taken in the Donbas in early 2014—before Moscow’s hybrid war began—showed that less than 30 percent of the population wanted either independence from Ukraine or unification with Russia. Inozemtsev’s own language suggests that he recognizes that his proposal is not consistent with the wishes of the local populations. Thus he advocates that Kyiv accept “the so-called referendums of May 11, 2015.”
There is one more principled reason to reject Inozemtsev’s proposal. According to the UN, people in the DNR and LNR have faced “serous human rights abuses,” including “killings, torture, ill-treatment, illegal detention and forced labor, lack of freedom of movement, assembly and expression” under Kremlin rule. In Russian-occupied Crimea, Tatars, ethnic Ukrainians, and the Kyiv Patriarchate and Uniate churches have faced systematic repression. It would be unconscionable to abandon these vulnerable people to the tender mercies of the FSB.
There are also pragmatic reasons for rejecting Inozemtev’s advice. Putin’s aggression has forged a new and strong Ukrainian patriotism. Abandoning Ukrainian citizens in Crimea and the Donbas would not be understood by a large majority and might spark a political crisis when unity is essential.
Moreover, it is well understood that Kyiv’s position has strengthened and Moscow’s weakened over the past year. Ukraine passed major reform in the gas sector, passed two IMF approved budgets, received substantial (if not sufficient) economic assistance from the international community, renegotiated its private debt at a 20 percent discount, and fought Russia to a standstill in the Donbas. Ukraine’s drastic economic decline in 2015 bottomed out in the last quarter and the IMF is projecting 1-2 percent growth in 2016. In that same period, the West maintained sanctions on Russia and the price of oil dropped under $40 a barrel. The Russian economy declined by over 3 percent in 2015 and the standard of living by approximately 10 percent. With oil testing new lows and the sanctions costing 1-1.5 percent of GDP per year, the IMF is predicting that the Russian economy will contract by 1-2 percent in 2016.
Perhaps responding to the economic woes and the strong fight put up by Ukraine’s armed forces, Moscow has reduced its cease-fire violations over the past four months, turned its attention to Syria, and shown a bit more flexibility in the Minsk process. In these improving circumstances, Ukraine has no reason whatsoever to make concessions on core principles. And the West, which has a fundamental interest in opposing war as a tool to change borders, should increase its support for Ukraine as it battles for its territorial integrity.
John E. Herbst is the Director of the Atlantic Council’s Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. He served as the US Ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006.
Related Experts:
John E. Herbst
Russia
Ukraine
Image: US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko walk during their meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, December 7, 2015. Credit: REUTERS/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Mikhail Palinchak/Handout via Reuters
© 2024 Atlantic Council
All rights reserved.
●Privacy Policy
●Cookie Policy
●Terms and conditions of use
●Intellectual Independence Policy
●Government Funding Review Process
●Policy on donor acceptance and disclosure
●Modern Day Slavery and Anti-Human Trafficking Policy
●Photo credits
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok