By Tom Fowdy
This week, Ukraine's parliament passed a new law limiting the independence and power of two of the country's Anti-corruption agencies and placing them under the direction of an appointment set by the President. The law, despite the country being in the middle of a war, prompted mass protests which have been described as the largest since the Euromaidan event. The bill was then criticised by the European Commission, which stated that it undermines their path to membership of the union, with Ursula Von Der Leyen stating "there can be no compromise" on the matter. Domestic critics in the country declared it as a step towards authoritarianism.
To the average Western observer, the move is both sudden and unexpected, not least when they have been fed a narrative for years instructing them that Ukraine is an innocent and benevolent democracy fighting for freedom against Russian aggression. That Kyiv could suddenly veer towards an authoritarian move seeking to block allegations of corruption by its own political elites contravenes the binary framing of the conflict, and it appears western states themselves were caught off guard by it too. But this only goes to show that what Ukraine has been "sold" to the west has always been existentially deceptive and idealistic by nature, even if there are key strategic goals they wish to implement by supporting the state.
Contrary to Western narratives, Ukraine is simply a smaller version of Russia in institutional terms. That does not make it right to morally invade the country, but context is important. Kyiv is not a benevolent, righteous, and innocent actor at the level of the state. Instead, what I fundamentally argue is that the Ukrainian state apparatus is an institutional "offspring" and thus successor to the Soviet Union, as was the Russian Federation itself, and with it adopts the fundamental institutional cultural norms and "methodology" of acting as would Russia itself, on a smaller scale. Thus, while Russia has a problem with corruption, so does Ukraine, because the two identities ,even if diametrically opposed and at war, are existentially brothers in institutional terms.
As a result, the reality is that it is erroneous to describe Ukraine as a "western democracy" in the idealistic sense. Rather, like the Russian Federation, Kyiv has an oligarchic and plutocratic state culture where key wealthy individuals wield excessive power and influence, operating within a state which, on paper, is "democratic" but is quasi-authoritarian. Dissent is purged, people disappear or die in mysterious circumstances, and opposition is often criminalised outright. While Russia's invasion is obviously a strong mitigating factor in Ukraine becoming even more authoritarian, hence it is a martial law regime, it is nonetheless ignored by the West that the Ukrainian state wields ultranationalism in order to solidify its power, and refuses to compromise to end the war.
Noting this factor, I have long noted and continue to note that the Ukrainian state lies extensively. While a lot of focus is placed on Russian misinformation and propaganda, less so is placed on Ukraine's efforts, which are not scrutinised but, in fact, blasted on a megaphone at face value through outlets such as the BBC. I argue Ukraine's deception has been brazen in its ludicrous exaggeration of Russian casualty counts and material losses, the unconvincing understatement of its own losses in tandem; Zelensky said Ukraine lost 33,000 drops which also consisted of people being injured twice, compare that to the claim they killed 1 million Russian troops, and a focus on publicity stunts as opposed to actual strategy. Creating the image of success, unmerited, has been key to their hope of prolonging the war and pushing for aid, even with no winnable endgame in sight. This is again a strategy of deception which is directly born from Soviet culture; it is the same in Kyiv as it is in Moscow.
However, for all we can accept the shortcomings of the Ukrainian state, some merit ought to be given to its population, who clearly are outraged at the prospect of curbing and politicising the country's anti-corruption authority. This will provide a unique challenge to Zelensky and the elite who seek to maintain power through a perpetual continuation of the war while floating their entire budget on Western support. I believe the status quo Ukraine has configured here is unsustainable, because public morale is ultimately starting to wane, and this will only accelerate it. While this may not mean battlefield collapse to Russia, an unlikely scenario, something will "have to give," and this may mean the uncomfortable reality that Ukraine may have to make peace with Russia, and with it, political challenges may follow.
Ukraine has cast its lot not only in alignment but in integration with the West. The West can tolerate having authoritarian allies or partnerships when it suits them in the strategic sense, but it can't tolerate one who wants to "become" one of their own and join the European Union. Kyiv has to shake off its post-Soviet culture, but its elites show no willingness to do so.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | China's economy appears to be holding up
Opinion | HK's market boom defies the naysayers and shows the city's value remains
Comment