The open letter to the presidents of countries involved in the conflict in Ukraine

 I appeal primarily to presidents of countries, including the self-proclaimed, directly involved in the conflict: Ukraine, DNR and LNR. But also to the presidents of Russia, US and Western European countries providing advocacy, information, material, financial and military aid to one of the parties directly involved in the armed conflict.

Dear Sirs Presidents!

Each of you has repeatedly stated its desire to achieve a just solution to the conflict in Ukraine, and many supporters of each of you chorus echoed this. However, the concept of justice in each of the parties are very different from each other. In addition, the concept of justice of each side is remarkably close to its interests, what suggests that each side, even if it is sincere and not hypocritical, is not based on a rational basis, but on patriotic, and in the worst case, on selfish emotions. This is evidenced by the arguments used by the parties in support of equity of their positions. Arguments, as I shall try to show, does not hold water.

Americans and Europeans equate justice with the law. Referendums in the Crimea and the Donbass not been conducted in strict accordance with the law, it means their separation from Ukraine unfair. We tend to forget that in Kosovo referendum did not meet the Constitution of Yugoslavia or Serbia, but in this case justice no longer had to coincide with the law.

Many of Russians base justice through history. The Crimea was conquered by Russia, not Ukraine, the Donbass and the entire south of today’s Ukraine in tsarist times called Novorussia, not Ukraine, therefore, it would be right to secede them from Ukraine and to attach to Russia. Certain forces in Ukraine in particular the Right Sector and the Freedom also base justice through history. Only their history and, accordingly, their justice are different. According their justice not only the Donbas and Crimea should belong to Ukraine but also Belgorod region and the Kuban of Russia and some areas of Poland. We tend to forget that if to climb in history far enough, you will find that no people are living in right place and you need to relocate somewhere each of them, and some simply to remove from the planet. By the way today there are a lot of historical claims on foreign territory around the world, not only in Ukraine, but it is well known to how bloody wars these claims led in the past.

There are attempts to justify the position in a territorial dispute through the sacred meaning of the territory for one of the parties. In this regard a lot has already been said. I will add only that, if we will determine justice through the sacredness of place for each of the parties, there is no chance of an agreement, because we cannot compare sacredness of place for some and for others. (“Everyone loves caviar, but I love it more than anyone else”).

Fairness in territorial disputes should be resolved only on the basis of the desire of the majority population of the disputed territory become part of a State or create your own. The question is, why the people of Scotland have the right to secede from England through a referendum and the inhabitants of Crimea or Donbass can not? Because the English Constitution permits such a referendum, and Ukrainian is not allowed? But two constitutions which contradict to each other in some question cannot together be correct and fair at this point. So, if we want fair resolution of such conflicts, we must recognize that one of these constitutions must be corrected.

Of course, if we acknowledge that justice in territorial disputes determined by the will of the majority of the population of the disputed territories, we must take care that this will not be used by various political manipulators able to bribe or deceive the population. Also need to take care of not to start the parade of sovereignties that can disrupt economic stability in the world, etc. Therefore, the law of such referendums (international, not every country has its own) must contain restrictions, cutting off the possibility of manipulation and other possible trouble.

Of course, referendums must be fair, free, transparent, etc. In addition, the right to a referendum on secession should be limited by the minimum area occupied by pretending on seceding , indissolubility of this area, a minimum number of population on it, the presence of boundaries of the seceding territory with at least two states, etc.

Needless to say, there are strong claims for purity and transparency to the referendum in the Crimea and the Donbass. But in one of his recent interview the previous Speaker and acting President Turchinov said that the difficulties of the war in the Donbass are caused by support a population of militants. There are recognitions in the same spirit and of other officials of Ukraine, which could not be suspected of pro-Russian sympathies. These statements, of course, not a substitute for an honest referendum, but they and many others suggest that also an honest referendum would reveal the unwillingness of most of the population of these regions to remain part of Ukraine, at least under the circumstances. A revolution, whatever it was great and fair, it’s still a violent change of power and it was made without their agreement. Maybe they incorrectly estimate the new government and the revolution itself. Maybe nobody in the new Ukraine is not going to spread rot and oppress them. May be, as some Ukrainian politicians say, they are children who do not understand their happiness. But would be it justice to impose by force them the happiness which they do not accept ?

So what is a fair solution to this conflict? Obviously, it is implementation in the Crimea and the Donbass honest, transparent, etc. referendum. How to implement a fair referendum in the prevailing circumstances of today? When one part of the population is afraid of the ATO, and others fear the militants, when the economic blockade has put people on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, and so on? Even the presence of numerous international observers will not make the choice of the people free from the pressure of circumstances. Therefore, first we must fix the situation as it has developed today, dividing warring parties with the help of the UN peacekeeping forces. After that we must wait for the normalization of life in the region. If the parties directly or indirectly involved in the conflict will assume the relevant obligations to help this normalization, it takes, say, 5 years. And then hold a referendum by all the rules under international supervision and the result of this referendum must take all parties to the conflict.

 Alexander Voin, philosopher, PhDa