就俄-乌战争致杰弗里·萨克斯的公开信

就俄罗斯-乌克兰战争致杰弗里·萨克斯的公开信

尤里·戈罗德尼琴科 (Yuriy Gorodnichenko)，经济学教授 | 2023 年 3 月 20 日

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the- Russia-ukraine-war/?

亲爱的萨克斯博士，

我们是一群经济学家，其中包括许多乌克兰人，他们对您关于俄罗斯对乌克兰战争的言论感到震惊，并被迫写这封公开信来解决您的论点中的一些历史歪曲和逻辑谬误。 在您多次出现在俄罗斯主要宣传家之一弗拉基米尔·索洛维约夫的脱口秀节目中（除了呼吁将乌克兰城市从地球上抹去外，他还呼吁对北约国家进行核打击），我们回顾了您的专栏文章 在您的个人网站上，注意到一些重复出现的模式。接下来，我们希望向您指出这些不实陈述以及我们的简短回应。

国际刑事法院法官对弗拉基米尔·弗拉基米罗维奇·普京发出逮捕令

模式一：否认乌克兰的代理权

在您 2023 年 1 月 10 日的文章《新世界经济》中，您写道："毕竟，正是美国试图将北约扩大到格鲁吉亚和乌克兰，引发了格鲁吉亚（2010 年）和乌克兰（2014年）的战争 直到今天）。”同样，您在 2023年2月13日发表的文章《乌克兰需要向阿富汗学习什么》中写道：“乌克兰的代理战争始于九年前，当时美国政府支持推翻乌克兰总统维克托·亚努科维奇。 从美国的角度来看，亚努科维奇的罪过是他试图维持乌克兰的中立，尽管美国希望将北约扩大到包括乌克兰（和格鲁吉亚）。”

让我们澄清一下2013年至2014年的历史事件，您在上述错误言论中暗示：亲欧盟示威与北约和美国无关。 最初的抗议是由维克多·亚努科维奇决定不签署《欧盟-乌克兰联合协议》引发的，尽管该协议已在乌克兰议会以压倒性多数获得通过并得到乌克兰民众的广泛支持。 2013年11月30日晚，亚努科维奇政权选择残酷殴打和平抗议者（主要是学生）作为回应，这只进一步疏远了民众并加剧了抗议活动。 亚努科维奇于 2014 年 1 月通过一套禁止新闻和集会自由的法律（通常称为“独裁法”)后，亲欧盟示威变成了一场更广泛的运动，反对政府滥用权力和腐败、警察暴行和人权。 侵犯权利——我们现在称之为尊严革命。 乌克兰加入北约从来都不是该运动的目标。 因此，你试图将战争的开始追溯到“北约”，这在历史上是不准确的。此外，将乌克兰视为美国地缘政治棋盘上的一颗棋子，对数百万在尊严革命中冒着生命危险的乌克兰人来说是一记耳光。

模式#2：北约挑衅俄罗斯

您反复强调北约的扩张激怒了俄罗斯（例如，"北约不应该扩大，因为这威胁到俄罗斯的安全", 摘自您 2023年2月27日在《纽约客》上接受艾萨克·乔蒂纳的采访）。

我们想提醒您注意一些事实。1939年，苏联和纳粹德国入侵波兰。1940年，苏联入侵波罗的海国家。1940年，苏联吞并了罗马尼亚的部分地区。1956年，苏联入侵匈牙利。 1968年，苏联入侵捷克斯洛伐克。波兰、爱沙尼亚、立陶宛、拉脱维亚、罗马尼亚、匈牙利或捷克斯洛伐克没有入侵俄罗斯或苏联。 这些国家没有发出任何威胁。 但这些国家受到了苏联/俄罗斯的攻击。 这就是这些国家想要加入北约的原因。 自从加入北约以来，这些国家都没有再受到俄罗斯的袭击。

就像这些国家一样，乌克兰（在俄罗斯对其进行军事侵略之前，2013年的军事预算仅为 29亿美元）希望拥有安全与和平。它不想再次受到俄罗斯的攻击（俄罗斯2013年的军事预算为680亿美元）。鉴于乌克兰于1994年同意放弃核武器以换取美国、英国和俄罗斯（！）的安全“保证”，并没有阻止俄罗斯的侵略，目前唯一可信的保证就是加入北约。

我们还想提请你注意，芬兰和瑞典为应对俄罗斯的侵略而申请加入北约，但俄罗斯并没有抱怨这两个国家加入北约。您似乎也并不特别关心这两个国家加入北约。对乌克兰与芬兰/瑞典的这种区别对待使“势力范围”合法化，这一概念似乎适合帝国时代，而不适合现代。

模式#3：否认乌克兰的主权完整

在您接受《现在民主！》采访时2022年12月6日，您说：“所以，我的观点是，[……]克里米亚在历史上一直是，并且在未来实际上，至少是事实上的俄罗斯。”

我们想提醒大家，俄罗斯 2014年吞并克里米亚违反了《布达佩斯备忘录》（俄罗斯在其中承诺尊重和保护包括克里米亚在内的乌克兰边界）和《友好、伙伴关系与合作条约》（俄罗斯于 1997 年与乌克兰签署） 相同的承诺），并且根据联合国国际法院的命令，它违反了国际法。 作为联合国安理会常任理事国，俄罗斯本应维护和平，但俄罗斯却违反了联合国的基本原则（《联合国宪章》第二条：“各会员国在国际关系中不得威胁或使用武力”）。 武力侵犯任何国家的领土完整或政治独立，或以任何其他不符合联合国宗旨的方式。”）。 事实上，正如肯尼亚驻联合国大使在其著名演讲中所强调的那样，二战后的整个世界安全架构都基于这样的假设：国家边界（无论历史背景如何）不能为了维护和平而通过武力改变。 如果允许一个核国家随意吞并别国领土，那么世界上没有一个国家会感到安全。

通过坚持俄罗斯可以保留克里米亚，你隐含着一个假设：如果允许俄罗斯这样做，它将让乌克兰其他地区保持和平。 然而，这显然不是事实，因为俄罗斯在 2014 年至 2022 年期间对克里米亚的“事实上”所有权并没有阻止其当前的侵略。 普京的目标是“最终解决乌克兰问题”，即彻底摧毁乌克兰并吞并其全部领土。 因此，吞并克里米亚并没有“恢复历史正义”——他只是为进一步军事打击乌克兰准备了跳板。 因此，恢复乌克兰对其整个领土的控制不仅对乌克兰的安全至关重要，而且对所有其他国家的安全也至关重要（通过强化侵略者不应该掠夺土地而逃脱惩罚的教训！）。

此外，您还表示“俄罗斯肯定永远不会在乌克兰接受北约”。供您参考，《联合国宪章》强调人民自决是一项关键原则。 俄罗斯不应该决定乌克兰加入或不加入哪些联盟或联盟。 乌克兰有自己的民主选举政府（不是像俄罗斯那样的独裁政府），该政府在与乌克兰人民协商后将决定乌克兰是否加入北约。 同样，北约国家完全有权自行决定欢迎谁加入其联盟。

模式#4：推进克里姆林宫的和平计划

在上述文章“乌克兰需要向阿富汗学习什么”中，您写道：“和平的基础是明确的。乌克兰将是一个中立的非北约国家。克里米亚仍将是俄罗斯黑海海军舰队的所在地，自1783年以来一直如此。将为顿巴斯找到切实可行的解决方案，例如领土划分、自治或停战线。

虽然你的建议与俄罗斯宣传人员的建议完全一致，但从乌克兰的角度来看，它没有回答一个关键问题：基于什么证据，你相信一个多次声称乌克兰不存在的连环战争贩子会感到满意？ 克里米亚和顿巴斯不是试图占领整个国家吗？ 在你找到这个问题令人信服的答案之前，我们恳请你参考泽连斯基总统提出并得到乌克兰人民全力支持的十点和平计划。 反驳克里姆林宫的“和平计划”只会延长乌克兰人民的痛苦。

如果乌克兰在2021年12月或2022年3月向普京提供克里米亚和顿巴斯，那么“战斗就会停止，俄罗斯军队将离开乌克兰，乌克兰的主权将得到联合国安理会和其他国家的保障”，这只是一厢情愿的想法。 2022年初的和平谈判破裂并不是因为美国不存在干预，而是因为俄罗斯要求乌克兰无条件投降（现在仍然如此！）。请记住，俄罗斯在乌克兰的目标是“非军事化和去纳粹化”。普京的政治顾问之一蒂莫费·谢尔盖采夫在他的文章《俄罗斯应该如何对待乌克兰？》中解释了“去纳粹化”的含义。 在那里，他主张对乌克兰国家进行残酷的破坏，包括杀害数百万人并对其他人进行“再教育”。 俄罗斯人已经开始在乌克兰被占领土实施这些计划。

我们建议你阅读谢尔盖采夫的全文，但有几段文字清楚地表明了他的意思：“一个正在去纳粹化的国家不能拥有主权”，"去纳粹化将不可避免地包括去乌克兰化——拒绝大规模人为的 苏联当局发起的历史上的小俄罗斯和新俄罗斯领土人口自我认同中种族成分的膨胀”，“乌克兰的去纳粹化意味着其不可避免的去欧洲化”，[去纳粹化意味着......]“夺取 教育材料并禁止各级教育项目包含纳粹意识形态指导”（谢尔盖采夫在他的文章中多次称乌克兰人为“纳粹”）。

你似乎没有意识到，与这种言论一致，俄罗斯犯下了联合国和许多其他组织记录的可怕的战争罪行。 我们无法从俄罗斯持续的暴行中看出任何真正对和平感兴趣的迹象。

我们敦促你重新评估你的立场，认为俄罗斯有兴趣进行善意的和平谈判。

模式#5。 将乌克兰描绘成一个分裂的国家

在《乌克兰需要向阿富汗学习什么》一书中，您还指出，“美国忽视了乌克兰的两个严峻的政治现实。 首先，乌克兰在种族和政治上存在深刻的分歧：乌克兰西部的仇恨俄罗斯的民族主义者与乌克兰东部和克里米亚的俄罗斯族。”

这一声明呼应了俄罗斯在 2004年总统选举期间首次使用的政治技术，至今俄罗斯人仍在使用它来为乌克兰“去纳粹化”辩护。我们鼓励您看看实际的经验事实和历史。

1991年，乌克兰所有地区投票支持独立。 包括克里米亚。

根据2001年人口普查（乌克兰现有的自我认定种族的最新数据），除克里米亚外，乌克兰人口在乌克兰所有地区占多数。 当我们谈论克里米亚时，我们应该问为什么它有这样的民族成分。 该国人口中俄罗斯人占多数，原因是自 1783年首次被俄罗斯占领以来，一直到 1944年克里米亚鞑靼人被驱逐到苏联偏远地区，发生了一系列种族灭绝和驱逐。 克里米亚的土著居民被驱逐、杀害，并被俄罗斯人取代。 俄罗斯在对乌克兰人的几次种族灭绝中也使用了类似的策略——例如，在 1932-33年的大饥荒期间，俄罗斯人来到死于饥荒的乌克兰人的房子里。 今天，在当前的战争中，俄罗斯正在使用同样的人口替代策略：驱逐乌克兰人口，强行收养乌克兰儿童，或者在强行将他们与家人分开后对他们进行“再教育”（洗脑）。

除了清洗乌克兰人和其他土著居民外，俄罗斯还使用了“软”策略，例如俄罗斯化，即阻止在所有领域学习和使用乌克兰语言。 俄罗斯化已经持续了几个世纪。 它的手段相当多样化——从通过派遣乌克兰人到俄罗斯工作和派遣俄罗斯人到乌克兰学习或工作来“混合”人们，到让说乌克兰语的人几乎不可能进入大学，到将乌克兰语言和文化视为落后。 比“伟大的俄罗斯文化”还不如窃取乌克兰文化遗产（例如，直到现在世界博物馆才开始正确地将俄罗斯展示的乌克兰艺术家识别为俄罗斯人，从2014年起，尤其是在 去年）。 因此，尖锐的语言讨论是对俄罗斯历史上压制恢复乌克兰语言权利的企图的自然反应。 尽管有这段压迫历史，乌克兰人还是逐渐转向乌克兰语，而俄罗斯的全面入侵加剧了这一进程。

最近的民意调查显示，无论语言或地点如何，绝大多数乌克兰人（80%）拒绝向俄罗斯让步领土。民意调查还显示，85%的乌克兰人首先将自己视为乌克兰公民，而不是其所在地区的居民、少数民族代表或其他一些身份标识。这在一个分裂的国家里几乎是不可能的。

总之，我们欢迎您对乌克兰感兴趣。然而，如果你的目标是提供帮助并就如何结束战争提出建设性建议，我们认为这个目标无法实现。你们的干预歪曲了俄罗斯入侵的起源和意图，混合了事实和主观解释，并传播了克里姆林宫的叙述。乌克兰不是地缘政治棋子或分裂国家，乌克兰有权决定自己的未来，乌克兰自1991年获得独立以来没有攻击过任何国家。俄罗斯的侵略战争没有任何道理。 明确的道德指南针、对国际法的尊重以及对乌克兰历史的坚定理解应该成为任何争取公正和平的讨论的决定性原则。

Open letter to Jeffrey Sachs on the Russia-Ukraine war

Yuriy Gorodnichenko, professor of economics | March 20, 2023

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/?

Dear Dr. Sachs,

We are a group of economists, including many Ukrainians, who were appalled by your statements on the Russian war against Ukraine and were compelled to write this open letter to address some of the historical misrepresentations and logical fallacies in your line of argument. Following your repeated appearances on the talk shows of one of the chief Russian propagandists, Vladimir Solovyov (apart from calling to wipe Ukrainian cities off the face of the earth, he called for nuclear strikes against NATO countries), we have reviewed the op-eds on your personal website and noticed several recurring patterns. In what follows, we wish to point out these misrepresentations to you, alongside our brief response.

ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin

Pattern #1: Denying the agency of Ukraine

In your article “The New World Economy” from January 10, 2023, you write: “It was, after all, the US attempt to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine that triggered the wars in Georgia (in 2010) and in Ukraine (2014 until today).” Similarly, in your article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan” from February 13, 2023, you write: “The proxy war in Ukraine began nine years ago when the US government backed the overthrow of Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych’s sin from the US viewpoint was his attempt to maintain Ukraine’s neutrality despite the US desire to expand NATO to include Ukraine (and Georgia).”

Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, at which you hint in the aforementioned misinformative statements: The Euromaidan had nothing to do with NATO, nor the US. Initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population. Yanukovych’s regime’s choice to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013, only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the  “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.

Pattern #2: NATO provoked Russia 

You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).

We want to alert you to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. But these countries were attacked by the USSR/Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.

Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.

We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland/Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires and not for the modern era.

Pattern #3: Denying Ukraine’s sovereign integrity

In your interview to Democracy Now! on December 6, 2022, you said: “So, my view is that […] Crimea has been historically, and will be in the future, effectively, at least de facto Russian.”

We wish to remind you that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated international law. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia was supposed to protect peace, but instead Russia violated the foundational principle of the UN (Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”). Indeed, the entire world security architecture after WWII is based on the assumption that country borders (regardless of historical background) cannot be changed by force in order to preserve peace, as Kenya UN ambassador highlighted in his famous speech. If a nuclear power is allowed to annex territories of another country as it wishes, then no country in the world can feel safe.

By insisting that Russia can keep Crimea, you are making an implicit assumption that if Russia is allowed to do that, it will leave the rest of Ukraine in peace. However, this is demonstrably not true, as Russia’s “de facto” ownership of Crimea over 2014–2022 did nothing to preclude its current aggression. The aim of Putin is to “ultimately solve the Ukrainian question,” i.e. to completely destroy Ukraine and annex its entire territory. Thus, by annexing Crimea he did not “restore the historical justice” — he just prepared a springboard for further military attacks on Ukraine. Therefore, restoring Ukraine’s control over its entire territory is crucial not only for the security of Ukraine but also for the security of all other nations (by reinforcing the lesson that aggressors should not get away with land grabs!).

Also, you state that “Russia certainly will never accept NATO in Ukraine.” For your information, the UN Charter emphasizes the self-determination of peoples as a key principle. It’s not for Russia to decide what alliances or unions Ukraine will or will not join. Ukraine has its own democratically-elected government (not a dictatorship, like in Russia), and this government, after consultation with Ukrainian people, will decide whether Ukraine will or will not join NATO. Likewise, NATO countries have every right to decide for themselves whom they would like to welcome in their alliance.

Pattern #4: Pushing forward Kremlin’s peace plans

In the aforementioned article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan,” you write: “The basis for peace is clear. Ukraine would be a neutral non-NATO country. Crimea would remain home to Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet, as it has been since 1783. A practical solution would be found for the Donbas, such as a territorial division, autonomy, or an armistice line.”

While your suggestion is perfectly aligned with that of Russian propagandists, it leaves unanswered the key question from the Ukrainian perspective: Based on what evidence do you trust a serial warmonger, who has stated on multiple occasions that Ukraine does not exist, to be satisfied with Crimea and Donbas and not try to occupy the entire country? Until you find a convincing answer to this question, we would kindly ask you to refer to the 10-point peace plan proposed by President Zelensky and fully backed up by the Ukrainian people. Regurgitating Kremlin’s “peace plans” would only prolong the suffering of Ukrainian people.

Writing that if Ukraine offered Putin Crimea and Donbas in December 2021 or March 2022 then “the fighting would stop, Russian troops would leave Ukraine, and Ukraine’s sovereignty would be guaranteed by the UN Security Council and other nations” is just wishful thinking. Peace negotiations in early 2022 broke down not because of non-existent US intervention but because Russia demanded unconditional capitulation of Ukraine (and it still does!). Remember that Russia’s goals in Ukraine were “demilitarization and denazification”. What “denazification” means was explained by one of Putin’s political advisors, Timofey Sergeitsev, in his piece “What Russia should do with Ukraine?” There, he argued for the brutal destruction of the Ukrainian nation involving killing millions of people and “re-educating” others. Russians already started implementing these plans in the occupied territories of Ukraine.

We suggest that you read the entire text by Sergeitsev’s, but a few passages clearly show what he means: “a country that is being denazified cannot possess sovereignty,” “Denazification will inevitably include de-ukrainization — the rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic component in the self-identification of the population of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya territories, which was started by the Soviet authorities”, “denazification of Ukraine means its inevitable de-europeanization”, [denazification implies…] “the seizure of educational materials and the prohibition of educational programs at all levels that contain Nazi ideological guidelines” (in his article, Sergeitsev repeatedly calls Ukrainians “Nazis”).

You seem to be unaware that, consistent with this rhetoric, Russia commits horrendous war crimes as documented by the UN and many others. We fail to discern any indication of a genuine interest in peace from the ongoing  Russian atrocities.

We urge you to reevaluate your stance on thinking that Russia is interested in good-faith peace talks.

 

Pattern #5. Presenting Ukraine as a divided country

In “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan,” you also state that “The US overlooked two harsh political realities in Ukraine. The first is that Ukraine is deeply divided ethnically and politically between Russia-hating nationalists in western Ukraine and ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.”

This statement echoes a Russian political technology first applied during 2004 presidential elections and still used by Russians to justify the “denazification” of Ukraine today. We encourage you to take a look at the actual empirical facts and history.

In 1991, all regions of Ukraine voted for independence. Including Crimea.

According to the 2001 Census (the latest data on self-identified ethnicity available for Ukraine), Ukrainian population is the majority in all the regions of Ukraine, except for Crimea. And when we speak about Crimea, we should ask why it has the ethnic composition which it has. It has a Russian majority because of a series of genocides and deportations starting from its first occupation by Russia in 1783 and as recently as 1944 when Crimean Tatars were deported to remote parts of the Soviet Union. Crimea’s indigenous population was deported, killed, and replaced by Russians. A similar tactic was used by Russia during its several genocides of Ukrainians — for example, during the Great Famine of 1932–33, Russians arrived to live in the houses of Ukrainians who died of famine. Russia is using the same tactics of population replacement today, in the current war: it deports the Ukrainian population, forcefully adopts Ukrainian children or “re-educates” (brainwashes) them after forcefully parting them with their families.

Besides cleansing Ukrainian and other indigenous populations, Russia used “softer” tactics, such as Russification, i.e. discouraging the learning and usage of the Ukrainian language in all spheres. Russification has been ongoing for centuries. Its instruments have been quite diverse — from “mixing” people by sending Ukrainians to work to Russia and sending Russians to study or work in Ukraine, to making it close to impossible for Ukrainian speakers to enter universities, to representing Ukrainian language and culture as backward and inferior to the “great Russian culture,” to stealing Ukrainian cultural heritage (e.g. only now world museums started to correctly identify Ukrainian artists presented by Russia as Russian, and hundreds of thousands of artifacts have looted from Ukrainian museums from 2014 and especially during the last year). Thus, the acute language discussions are a natural response to Russia’s historical attempts to suppress any restoration of rights of the Ukrainian language. Despite this history of oppression, Ukrainians have been gradually switching to Ukrainian, and the Russian full-scale invasion intensified this process.

Recent polls show that irrespective of language or location, Ukrainians overwhelmingly (80%) reject territorial concessions to Russia. Polls also show that 85 percent of Ukrainians identify themselves above all as citizens of Ukraine, as opposed to residents of their region, representatives of an ethnic minority, or some other identifier. This is hardly possible in a divided country.

In summary, we welcome your interest in Ukraine. However, if your objective is to be helpful and to generate constructive proposals on how to end the war, we believe that this objective is not achieved. Your interventions present a distorted picture of the origins and intentions of the Russian invasion, mix facts and subjective interpretations, and propagate the Kremlin’s narratives. Ukraine is not a geopolitical pawn or a divided nation, Ukraine has the right to determine its own future, Ukraine has not attacked any country since gaining its independence in 1991. There is no justification for the Russian war of aggression. A clear moral compass, respect of international law, and a firm understanding of Ukraine’s history should be the defining principles for any discussions towards a just peace.