I'd like to, first of all, say that there have been approximately five different explanations of the crisis in Ukraine.
The first one I would describe as blaming the west. This is a rather curious alliance of left-wing critics of U.S. foreign policy and NATO and right-wing realists. Both of them blame the EU, NATO, and democracy promotion as leading to a counter-reaction by Vladimir Putin and Russia. Both of these groups, realists and left-wing critics, support some kind of grand bargain, a second Yalta agreement as in 1945, between the great powers that would consign Ukraine to a Russian sphere of influence. They tend to ignore domestic influences.
The second group, I would say, describes the crisis in Ukraine as a product of the geopolitical tug-of-war, particularly between the European Union and Russia.
The third is what I would call empire building, where Putin is branded as trying to rebuild a mini U.S.S.R. as in the Eurasian Union and as a kind of regional troublemaker.
The fourth, which is something I think is quite pertinent, is that this is a product of a domestic-type regime inside Russia, particularly what western political scientists call a militocracy. This is a regime run by the former KGB intelligence officers with a heavy dose of Russian nationalism.
My own personal favourite, which is, ironically, not really very much discussed in the west, is that it's a question of national identity. If Vladimir Putin were to wake up tomorrow and accept that Ukrainians are a separate people to Russians, that Ukraine is a sovereign country with the right to its own destiny and the right to decide its own future and where it wants to be, then the war would probably end very quickly. I think that aspect has not really had sufficient discussion in the west. There's a great quotation by Henry Kissinger, who said that he's never met a Russian who accepts that Ukrainians are a separate people.
National identity is very much at the root of the crisis in Ukraine and the inability of the Russian leadership to accept that Ukrainians are a separate people. Putin has repeatedly said the Russians and Ukrainians are one people; that the Ukraine is an artificial state, a failed state; that the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine are really Russian and therefore were wrongly included in Ukraine; and—this is actually quite amusing, but it is what is believed in Moscow—that the Ukrainian people would love to unite with the Russians, but they're being held back by oligarchs and other corrupt elites who are in the pay of the west. This is what is actually believed.
This is why I say that Russia does not really understand the internal dynamics of Ukraine. In fact, I would say that western experts and diplomats have a better understanding of what is taking place inside Ukraine than those in Moscow do. In Moscow, they approach Ukraine with stereotypes and mythology.
The one thing they cannot understand in Moscow is that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are patriots of the country. That was certainly seen in 2014. The idea that you can be a Russian-speaking Ukrainian and a patriot of the Ukraine is beyond them. In the eyes of Moscow, a Russian-speaking Ukrainian should be pro-Russian and pro-Putin. That was not the case in 2014. It's not the case today.
I was to the front line a few times last year. There are many Russian speakers fighting for Ukraine on the front line. Something like 50% to 60% of the soldiers are Russian speakers on the Ukrainian side. Therefore, it's wrong that some experts and journalists, particularly in Moscow, describe the conflict as a civil war between two groups of speakers, Ukrainian and Russian speakers. That's certainly not the case because there are Russian and Ukrainian speakers on the Ukrainian side. It is not the way opinion polls show that Ukrainians look at this.
Ultimately, the problem lies in the fact that the Russian leadership does not accept that Ukrainians are a people who have a right to decide their own geopolitical destiny and, therefore, their natural home is in the Eurasian Union and the Russian world, and the type of person who should be running Ukraine is somebody along the lines of Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko.
The problem that Moscow has is that that kind of conception of Ukraine would not match reality up until 2014. Hence, we had a revolution—a popular uprising—and it certainly does not match the situation today. When you have conflict and war, that inevitably speeds up the formation of national identity. Today, when you have 75% of Ukrainians are negatively disposed towards Vladimir Putin.
I'll just go over the last line because I'm coming to the end. Looking to the future, I think that this conflict is very deep and therefore long term, because in every regional environment where you have national identity questions, these take a long time to change. The majority of Russians, and the opposition by the way, the so-called democratic opposition, support the annexation of the Crimea and very few of them are really critical about Putin's policies towards Ukraine.
If Putin were no longer to be the President of Russia tomorrow, I don't think that much would change inside Russia. Russia would remain on its course towards Ukraine, which is aggressively disposed and I think also anti-western. Russia views its war in Ukraine as part of its overall conflict with the west. Russian leaders are adamant and they believe that to be viewed as a great power and equal to the U.S., they need to dominate their environment and their neighbourhood. That includes Ukraine, in particular.
I think this conflict will be with us for a long time. I don't see it being resolved very quickly because I don't think these kinds of national identity questions change overnight. They take a long time to change and may be generational.
Thank you.