From the Missed European Peace Order of 1991 to the Disregarded Autonomy of Crimea and the Devaluation of Fundamental Human Rights in Today's Trench Warfare
The 35th Independence Day of Ukraine is no Reason for Europe to Celebrate.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 could and should have formed the starting point for an all-European peace order incorporating Ukraine, but Russia as well. Yet Western militarists answered the end of the Warsaw Pact not with building a "common European home," but with NATO's eastward expansion starting in 1999 and the gradual military integration of Ukraine.
At the same time, looking at the nation-building of Ukraine reveals a profound hypocrisy: while Ukraine's right to secede from Moscow was highlighted as a matter of course, Kyiv systematically denied the people of Crimea that very same right to self-determination. This right was granted to the Soviet Union Republics (SSRs) like Ukraine and equally to the autonomous republics (ASSRs) by the Soviet referendum law of April 1990.
As early as January 1991, even before Ukraine's independence, the overwhelming majority of Crimean residents had voted in a referendum for an autonomous republic—a status that was dismantled piece by piece by Kyiv in the following years and liquidated in 1995 through the unilateral abolition of the Crimean constitution.
The historical disregard for regional identities culminated immediately after the 2014 Maidan coup in the attempt to strip the Russian language of its status as a regional official language—the spark for the conflict in the Donbas. What followed was a cultural and language policy that systematically displaced Russian, through which the political leadership attempted to forcibly impose a monolithic identity on the country.
Volodymyr Zelensky also quickly adopted this policy—contrary to his campaign promises as a candidate of reconciliation. Even before the start of the open war, he largely eliminated the political opposition through extensive party bans and the closure of critical television stations. The fact that these measures were in direct contradiction to fundamental EU values did not stop Western politicians from unconditionally supporting his ultranationalist policies and stubborn refusal to negotiate with Russia.
Despite this external media and political backing, the former television hero who came to power as the "Servant of the People" no longer believes in his own popular support and rejects new democratic elections. As financiers and arms suppliers, EU governments would have it in their hands to insist on a fair chance for Ukrainians to achieve a self-determined political shift. Instead, they cover up Zelensky's obstructive stance, thereby dragging their own nations deeper and deeper into the maelstrom of irresponsible escalation.
Ironically, even the right of asylum—otherwise prioritized at every opportunity—is subordinated to this policy of irrational risk maximization. Contrary to its core principle of protection from physical violence, European states are now beginning to deny the extension of residency permits to Ukrainian men of military age. This overrides their individual right to life and personal liberty (Art. 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The same applies—'consistently' enough—to the collective right to self-determination (Art. 1 of the UN Charter) of the civilian population in the contested areas. These people were never asked whether they were willing to endure an artificially prolonged war of attrition any longer or if they would prefer a life in peace, where territorial questions are settled via referendum.
Instead, they and those fit for service are exposed to a constant risk of death—allegedly for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while the preservation of power of an expired presidency and the 'sustainable' arms deals of the military-industrial complex (and a vast army of corrupt profiteers) receive no official mention.
The Historical Parable: The German Soldier Trade of the 18th Century
Such priorities evoke memories of one of the most lamentable chapters in German history: the soldier trade of German princes in the 18th century. Back then, absolutist rulers—including Count Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel—"rented out" tens of thousands of their subjects to the British Crown to suppress the American War of Independence. State treasuries were filled with English subsidies while their own men were wasted on foreign battlefields.
The death risk of the Hessians shipped abroad at that time—due to combat and disease—was historically extreme at around 30 percent, yet the structural pattern today remains the same: ordinary citizens are used and sacrificed by an elite like pawns on a chessboard to secure their own power.
Anyone who deprives Ukrainian men of military age of their right to protection in order to hand them over to the meat grinder of a frozen trench warfare is repeating the pattern of that princely rule. The only thing new is the label of defending a democracy that was directly fought against in that war against the young USA and only exists in a rudimentary form in today's Ukraine. It is time for a change of course that finally accords human life the proper priority over power interests and subordinates disputed border demarcations to the right of self-determination.
For no other right is so perfectly suited to replace military force as a means of conflict resolution and thus to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," as the United Nations has proclaimed in the preamble of its Charter since 1945.