While so many things have changed for our people over the years, the one aspect which remains the same is the inability to think out of pure rationality for the Rusyn people. A level of incompetency to such a degree that we lose the plot on so many occasions it is almost a certainty to happen again now. The shadows of our ancestors would rightfully be bewildered at the sight.
It is neither a secret nor an attempt to be one that I am not only suspicious of the Ukrainian state at large, but that this war will bring anything good for our people. I do not buy the line that manufactured statements of support for the Ukrainian military will bring much favor to our cause, if any at all. In these displays, I see a loss of intellectual sovereignty and the willingness to push past previous transgressions in the desire for something new. A naive hope that would be quickly dashed as our previous ancestor’s glee for when the Russians had finally arrived. It is a miscalculated move based on fear and emotion, not a strategy.
For the very reason that no other seems to be willing to write on the matter in the public forum, I shall take it upon myself to spell out what possible results of this conflict will bring to us. It is with no pleasure that I do, yet this is an act which I feel strongly compelled to move forward with because it seems as though it will go unsaid otherwise. The desire to push past the nervous energy that fills the air. May we one day actually work up the courage to play the game of realpolitik like everyone else. As a famous quote from another age goes:
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
From The History of the Peloponnesian War
Let us not suffer more than we have to.
A Ukrainian-Russian Stalemate:
The realization of a stalemate where Russia controls some of Ukraine, yet the rest of the country remains free is one of the worst outcomes that could possibly happen. Two central reasons have an overwhelming effect on this reality. The first is the militarized society that would continue under such a state. The second is the continued need for Neo-nazi and ultranationalist battalions within the country that can provide a legitimate extrajudicial danger.
What does a militarized society mean? While it may prove useful to go into the ambiguous term, the results are easier to describe. It is the stoppage of free information, such as Zelensky’s decree in combining all national TV Channels into one to control the country’s internal narrative. It is the loss of political freedom, something that has already started to take place in the outright banning of eleven political parties under the claim of having ties to Russia. Some of them may very well be Russian pawns, yet it is suspicious how virtually all of these are in some way left-wing in political orientation. These actions are the result of the complete consumption of realpolitik from an internal governance perspective.
To be clear, nearly every society under threat of war has done similar actions. The point of bringing these events up is not the actor per se (in this case Ukraine), but what the constraints of the situation put on a country. No nation on this earth would not in the face of existential threat curb rights, freedoms, and other such peace-time luxuries. Even countries such as the United States, a country that is incredibly free by international standards, has done reprehensible actions to its populace during wartime.
Having a militarized society does not just mean from the position of the government, but civilian society as well. To have a frozen conflict means on a psychological level to be stuck in a place in time. There is the enemy and you. For as long as the shields of war loom over this relationship will remain that way. No one can begin to heal because the traumatic event is not yet over. Social tensions, disgust of those different or perceived as threats, and generalized fear are ratcheted up to a high degree. Getting social change done as an outsider is virtually a non-starter.
Retracing back to the second reason, what can be said is that to believe militias and movements such as the Carpathian Sich or Azov Battalion do not serve an essential purpose in wartime is to be foolish. Not only do they give the ability to keep the government’s hands clean of potential war crimes that would otherwise be committed by the regular military, but they also serve as a more ferocious, ideologically driven force to be used against the enemy and a revolting populace.
While a nation at peace and at no threat of invasion has no purpose for such a group (or rather the cost severely outweighs the benefits), a country at war or under constant threat does. With the Banderite-style nationalism that has only grown in Ukraine since the start of the Euromaidan in 2014, it is not likely that in this scenario this deescalates.
Given the reasons above, I foresee a dark future that awaits Rusyns in this scenario. Limits on freedoms, a nationalist populace opposed to social change, and zero chance of integration into the EU leave few options left. Do I think this outcome is likely to happen? I cannot be certain, but given the way things have gone so far in this war, it is low on the list.
Outright Russian Victory, But No Occupation:
We are lumped in with the victors whether we like it or not, yet receive none of the benefits but most of the hatred. Assuming in this scenario we call a victory for Russia the de-escalation of fighting and the imposed neutrality of Ukraine with some territorial concessions, I see no other way to describe this outcome as other than a mild version of the one above. While the militarization of society may be halted, there is still no doubt an open wound that can be used for nationalist purposes.
Like all claims of a “greater past” whether it be in Turkey (or even Hungary) now or Germany in the 1920s, these things have a habit of reappearing once again down the road. This outcome may kick it down the road a few years or decades, but it is hard to believe those in Western Ukraine will forever be alright with it. Perhaps by that time, we will be better suited to deal with that energy.
This scenario brings up an interesting “realpolitik” question that links greatly to the next one. Would allying with Russia, in this case, be worth it? In frankly any scenario I don’t think this is a good option, but I ask those of our readership who actually do have a Pro-Russian perspective for a serious response. You do realize for this position to be of any use then Russia must go ahead and conquer the entire country? Otherwise, we will be left out to dry like all the other times we were foolish enough to align ourselves with them. Under most circumstances, this action would lead to complete disaster. You do not think we are so important that recognizing Rusyns or their autonomy will be a central issue in negotiations do you? Speaking of which —
Russian Occupation:
This my brothers and sisters, is where what is not said meets the public. Say what one will about the corruption of the Russian state, the effects of Zakarpattia being effectively shut off from the rest of Carpathian Rus in the short term, or a laundry list of other such things. One thing can be reasonably said for certain. The Ukrainization of our people will be stopped should such an outcome occur.
No one can truly be sure of anything much more than that. Whether this utter propaganda in the form of an autonomous republic heralded by a certain idiot or other such things ever come to fruition, it is a point that should be said openly. Whether your opinion on how likely this can be done without Russian help also influences how favorably you see this scenario. On the downside, we will likely once again see a policy of soft Russification. My opinion on which one is harder to manage will remain private, but analyzing this and being truthful about the negatives is important as well.
Many negatives and unknowns come from this outcome. They are just simply less violent and extreme than many others. Like I’ve said elsewhere, there are no “good” results here for us. It is hoping for one slightly less garbage option from a pile of them.
To return to realpolitik for a moment, I find this outcome the most unlikely of them all. Regardless of the propaganda, the Russians truly do not seem to be interested in taking any part of Western Ukraine. Instead, they seem at least for now to be focused on the former Novorossiya and taking Kyiv. Going off this assessment, it would be wise even from just looking at this from a purely strategic point to avoid anything to do with Russia with a ten-foot pole.
Ukraine Joins the EU in Some Capacity:
This scenario in my mind covers any scenarios from only Western Ukraine joining to the entire country but the Donbas and Crimea. In terms of connecting to the rest of Rusyns in Europe, this outcome looks the most promising. I have my doubts about the recognition of Rusyns in Subcarpathia as a prerequisite for joining the EU, however, the realization of joining may prove to have good consequences. This sense of optimism is in large part because of the multicultural attitude of the European Union. There are too many variables to say much more than this, such as the US involvement in Ukraine, sacrificing European Values© (whatever that means) for the sake of sticking it to Russia, and others.
Like Maksym in his latest article, I am cautiously optimistic of a Ukrainian future that rests in the EU. The keyword here is in the EU. Without that essential component, there is little difference from the rest of the options.
Ukrainian Victory:
Except for perhaps an increased sense of nationalism but less militarization, there seems not to be at least in the case of Rusyns much difference between this and the other Ukrainian loss scenarios above. Of course, there is a major difference in the future of the state itself, but the general feeling will not be much different. The problem of Russia and Ukraine being in conflict will also not go away because of a single loss. It will be back, it is just a question of when.
However, one increased problem from such an outcome that would not be seen in a more “neutral” scenario could be an increased US presence within the structures of power. Those in Washington have already helped fund the Azov battalion and were open to supporting the Euromaidan. Bankrolling and helping to weaponize a Ukrainian state in preparation for the next conflict like they did with other states like the authoritarian dictatorships in Latin America during the 20th century is not out of the realm of possibility.
There is little doubt in my mind given the existential threat that a western orientated Ukraine presents itself to Russia that there will be more problems in the future. An outright win by Ukraine however, is incredibly unlikely given their performance thus far.
Conclusion:
Aside from a couple of obvious cases, there is no best outcome that we can especially look forward to. Regardless of the result, we will have significant issues that provide a threat to Rusyn identity and consciousness. Not being scared to acknowledge this fact is not traitorous or whatever other war-time terms that have been thrown around lately. I have done this very step for you all now. What is not acceptable however is to confuse public-facing speech with internal group discussion. To not begin to realize what can be done before these happen so that we are prepared is the gravest error.
Planning strategic maneuvers of Anti-Rusyn propaganda not in the now, but in the future is vital. Thinking about how you will be able to intelligently process and assess the situation when it comes is as well. Dark times are ahead, and enough people are focused on the Russians and Ukrainians. Time to realize that nobody cares or will ever care enough about Rusyns besides ourselves. We must say what reality is, no matter how insane it sounds. We must prepare when no one else is looking.