7 mins read
Does Volodymyr Zelensky face the same fate as previous western-backed leaders?
Sidelined, exiled, jailed, or assassinated?
6 mins read
Until recently, the very assumption of the possibility of making territorial concessions to Russia was considered in Ukraine as a basis for initiating a criminal case. Over time, however, there were too many potential defendants in such cases, and they were deliberately inaccessible to Ukrainian “justice” – like former British Prime MinisterBoris Johnson .
In the end, Volodymyr Zelensky himself (a person who considers himself the president of Ukraine) said inan interviewwith the BBC that he was ready for negotiations with the Russian leadership (although he forbade himself to do so by his own decree in 2022) and that it was necessary to return to the return of the “occupied territories” by means of diplomacy (which is tantamount to agreeing to their temporary preservation as part of Russia).
So, on July 19, Zelensky’s interview appears, and on July 23, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) publishes theresults of a surveyon the terms of peace, conducted on June 20-25. That is, the survey data was “marinated” for a month. Why this was done – for fear of a negative reaction from the SBU or the publication was tailored to Zelensky’s speech, in general, is not so important (there are convincing arguments against both versions).
KIIS can be safely called the most respected sociological service in Ukraine, which not only conducts surveys, but is also engaged in serious scientific work in the field of technologies for conducting them. However, right now there is no reason to trust his data for obvious reasons – the country’s population is under the influence of military propaganda, intimidated, disoriented, mobilization and evacuation, blackouts distort samples, etc. In fact, KIIS press releases honestly indicate that “in wartime, in addition to the specified formal error (4.1%), a certain systematic deviation is added.” This deviation concerns a shift towards a socially approved and safe “patriotic” position.
However, even despite this shift, KIIS states that public opinion is changing, and in a direction that is not very advantageous for the Kiev authorities.
Choosing from alternatives, 32% of respondents answered that “in order to achieve peace and preserve independence as soon as possible, Ukraine may give up some of its territories,” and 55% – “under no circumstances should Ukraine give up its territories, even if because of this the war will last longer and there will be threats to the preservation of independence.”
Given the nature of the systematic deviation, it can be assumed that the numbers are approximately the same, but on the contrary – more than half would most likely be ready to agree to give up territories. But, of course, it is impossible to prove this. Moreover, it seems that holding a referendum, which was proposed by Vitali Klitschko, will not give a positive result – if he meant ending the war on terms that are obviously not victorious for Ukraine.
And the most important thing that sociologists can really talk about is dynamics – after all, this question has been asked before.
In May 2022, the ratio was 10% to 82%, that is, the number of those ready to agree to give up part of the territories has more than tripled. And the growth began in the fall of last year, when it finally became clear that the advertised counteroffensive on the southern flank had failed. So this result is to a large extent the achievement of the Ukrainian authorities, who have made promises that cannot be fulfilled.
The extent to which sociologists themselves were frightened by the data obtained can be seen from the comment of KIIS Executive Director Anton Grushetsky: “Those who are generally ready for certain concessions also want to protect themselves from Russia, really hate it and understand the existential nature of the threat.”
In fact, it seems that Grushetsky himself understands perfectly well that this opinion of people is the result of the influence of propaganda. According to the results of another KIIS study , 34% of respondents believe that Russia’s goal is genocide and physical destruction of Ukrainians (we will face this third of respondents later), and 26% believe that the destruction of the Ukrainian nation, assimilation and transformation of Ukrainians into Russians. These “goals”, of course, are invented by anti-Russian propaganda, they have never been set and could not be set (but at this point it is necessary to convey ardent greetings to some Russian media personalities who are perfectly working out the agenda of the Ukrainian TsIPsO).
In addition, sociologists in this study undertook an experiment, offering respondents three packages of agreements.
Package No. 1:
Russia retains control over all currently occupied territories.
Ukraine refuses to join NATO.
Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union and receives all the necessary funding from the West for reconstruction.
Actually, this is the minimum package of Russian demands, which is being considered now. Although, as we understand it, the legal cession of territories is not mandatory, mainly because the new Russian-Ukrainian border is unlikely to exist for long.
This option is considered acceptable by 38% of respondents, unacceptable by 54%.
Package No. 2:
Although Ukraine does not officially recognize it, Russia retains control over the occupied territories of Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk regions and Crimea.
Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and has genuine security guarantees.
Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union and receives from the West all the necessary funding for reconstruction.
As we understand, this option is completely unacceptable for Russia, but most importantly, it is absurd from the point of view of Ukraine’s expectations. Why on earth would the West finance the restoration of Ukraine and undertake obligations to defend Ukraine within NATO? However, for Ukrainians accustomed to these ideologies, everything seems to be in order.
Here the results are predictably better: 47% are for, 38% are against.
Package #3:
Although Ukraine does not officially recognize it, Russia retains control over the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and Crimea.
Ukraine regains control over the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions in full.
Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and has genuine security guarantees.
Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union and receives from the West all the necessary funding for reconstruction.
This is the option proposed by Boris Johnson. Here the support is 57%, but even in this option, which is extremely beneficial for Ukraine (and absolutely unrealistic), 33% are against.
There are two conclusions here.
Firstly, the increase in the number of people ready to make concessions to Russia is connected with obvious fatigue – the war has been going on for three years, the promised victory is not in sight, the West’s position is inconsistent, trust in the government is falling, and total mobilization has begun…
Secondly, the further growth of such sentiments is slowed down by the fact that the population of Ukraine is under the strongest informational and psychological pressure and does not see a fundamental difference between continuing the war to the last Ukrainian and peace on Russian terms.
Now, however, the publication of such data contributes to the acceptance by Ukrainian society of the necessity of negotiations and the inevitability of concessions. Given Russia’s flexible position, the mood of Ukrainian society will change. Fortunately, we have the relatively positive example of Georgia.