Many people, indeed, many governments, think it is time that the Ukraine war came to an end, and that it would be worth ceding some land in the Donbas to achieve a settlement. Ukrainians protest: if we do this, what will we have fought for over the last two and a half years? We could have given them this land at the beginning. There are personal agendas here, and a formidable grit: “…I don’t think it’s right to abandon our men. We have to fight until we have victory and Russia is punished for its crimes.” [1] So, within Ukraine, but perhaps not so much outside it, there is a persistent determination to win by driving out the invader.
There are economic factors, too, though they are not often mentioned. The Donbas, or ‘Donetskiy Coal Basin’ is a mining area, rich in minerals, notably lithium. Its population is largely Russian-speaking (about 78%), and about 39% ethnically Russian. Back in 2014, a survey revealed that 58% wanted self-government within Ukraine, while 31% wanted independence from Ukraine. During the ‘frozen conflict’ 2014-21, about a third of the Donbas was occupied by separatists. The fact that some of the Donbas has been under Russian control for the last two years, according to some, has tended to reduce the general enthusiasm for moving from Ukraine to Russia, because the Russian administration has been heavy-handed.
This is another example of the ethical motivation that persists on the Ukrainian side. I referred to it in an earlier blog about the cultures of the trenches; the Ukrainians believe that they are fighting for decency. Their supporters on the international stage would make the same claim. I am not claiming that this situation is unique to the present situation. In the First World War, German soldiers’ caps carried the badge, “Gott Mit Uns” (God with Us), and it was not new then. We all need to feel that we are struggling for what is righ. The fact of that psychological need should not cause us into dismissing the possibility that, because it is a human tendency, it is not a justified claim in this case.
However, there is little point in being right, justified or above criticism, but also dead or politicly obliterated. You have to keep going, and shift-shape to meet the current circumstances. Staying alive is therefore the dogged aim of the Ukrainians, at a personal, a national and a cultural level. ‘Staying alive’ means staying viable at every level: community, national and local.
It seems odd to talk about ‘community-building’ at a time of crisis. Surely, we are just keeping going? But to keep going, we need to be adapted to where we now are in a shifting landscape. Winston Churchill taught us that lesson eighty years ago. But the process of survival is led by a vision of what we will be, and what we will inherit after victory comes. Therefore, the leader is the one who articulates the essential vision of what we are and what we shall be, and this is fundamental to energising us and all who seek a way out of suffering. Churchill did this by referring to a sense of movement into a better, clearer, more liberated, brighter world:
“If we can stand up to him (Hitler), all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands”[2].
That is essentially the unspoken message in Ukraine today. The movement referred to is not achieved only by doggedness and articulated in the grands mots of the statesman. It is also found in the ways people find to improve things, even in the dire times and formidable hardships of the present moment. Ukraine Chain is committed to rebuilding collapsed support systems and reinforcing the fabric of society. This might sound like a large claim from a small organization, I know, but the statement can be true at the micro level as well as the macro.
Ukraine does not have the best of records. Before the war, it was notoriously corrupt and (in the eyes of some of its neighbours), rather hard-faced. You might say that the tendency towards hardness has served it well in these terrible times. So, without becoming pious about where Ukraine is and what it has been, it is valid, and necessary, to spell out in words and action what winning would look like, and how, even for us as a small-scale operator, it is possible to begin reassembling the fabric of society.
I wish you could have seen the looks on the faces of ordinary Ukrainians – mostly soldiers - when we encountered them in the towns and villages of the Donbas. Those faces, on which prolonged hardship had etched its marks, were illuminated with not just appreciation, but also with the idea of a blessing. We were mere instruments, which had through a few small actions brought food and an expression of solidarity. The sense of blessing came from within them, the recipients and the bystanders.
[1] ‘Vitaliy’, quoted by BBC, 14 Oct 2024
[2] Winston Churchill’s speech to Parliament, 18 June 1940
Comments