The week discussed with the ex-Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, former NSDC Secretary-General Alexander Turchinov a possible change in the nature of the war, information security issues and the growth of conservative trends in modern politics.

How do you assess the exchange of prisoners in terms of state interests? Can we really expect the exchange to continue in the near future?

– Citizens’ lives are of the highest value to the state. Sharing is a very important event that has been under preparation for over a year. This would not have happened without the massive support of the international community – the pressure on Russia was considerable. Russia tried to speculate on people’s lives and tied its criminal interests to the exchange (such as the return of the civilian plane involved in the destruction of Zmach). Instead of complying with the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Kremlin also listed the exchanges of seafarers captured in a pirated manner. 
Putin’s behavior is difficult to predict, but his motivation must be understood. He may promote his imperial interests by aggravating the situation in Ukraine or under the Kremlin peace scheme, which will mean for us the complete curtailment of European and Euro-Atlantic integration and destabilization of the situation inside the country. Under no circumstances will Putin abandon the policy of imperial revanchism and, consequently, the intentions of conquering Ukraine, whose independence in itself is a threat to his imperial project. It is also impossible to exclude events when a military conflict provoked by Moscow escalates into a full-fledged war. It is through this lens that any dialogue with Putin, including the exchange of prisoners, should be looked at.
Russia only understands power, and only a strong Ukraine, with a powerful army and advanced military equipment, is able to defend its interests. 

Can a meeting in “Norman format” turn into an imposition of peace on Russian terms? 

– There is such a danger. Unfortunately, our Western partners no longer consider the Ukrainian problem a priority for themselves. For them, Russia’s war against Ukraine is an issue that they seek to remove from the agenda on any conditions, in particular at the expense of our country’s interests. The proposals for resuming economic cooperation with the Russian Federation are growing louder. But Ukraine is trying to squeeze into the background only short-sighted politicians who do not understand the threat to their own countries. It is impossible to restore order in Europe and in the world, when aggression and force, rather than law, law, human interests, are crucial without understanding the weight of what is happening in our country. 

The old order established in Europe after the Second World War has been destroyed by Russia. Since 2014, Ukrainians have not simply defended their country, but have hindered Russia’s aggressive promotion to Europe. Ukraine has become an outpost, the eastern frontier of European civilization. It must be understood that the danger of a major armed conflict in the face of unpredictable totalitarian Russian power is the reality of today. Those who are thinking about the future of Europe should see to it that Ukraine stands and wins. It is a chance to restore order, based on law, freedom and inviolability of borders. If Russia turns the situation in its favor, the medieval principle of “who is stronger, right is right” will prevail again. And this is the path to a new global military confrontation. 

How do you assess the exchange of prisoners in terms of state interests? Can we really expect the exchange to continue in the near future?

– Citizens’ lives are of the highest value to the state. Sharing is a very important event that has been under preparation for over a year. This would not have happened without the massive support of the international community – the pressure on Russia was considerable. Russia tried to speculate on people’s lives and tied its criminal interests to the exchange (such as the return of the civilian plane involved in the destruction of Zmach). Instead of complying with the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Kremlin also listed the exchanges of seafarers captured in a pirated manner. 
Putin’s behavior is difficult to predict, but his motivation must be understood. He may promote his imperial interests by aggravating the situation in Ukraine or under the Kremlin peace scheme, which will mean for us the complete curtailment of European and Euro-Atlantic integration and destabilization of the situation inside the country. Under no circumstances will Putin abandon the policy of imperial revanchism and, consequently, the intentions of conquering Ukraine, whose independence in itself is a threat to his imperial project. It is also impossible to exclude events when a military conflict provoked by Moscow escalates into a full-fledged war. It is through this lens that any dialogue with Putin, including the exchange of prisoners, should be looked at.
Russia only understands power, and only a strong Ukraine, with a powerful army and advanced military equipment, is able to defend its interests. 

Can a meeting in “Norman format” turn into an imposition of peace on Russian terms? 

– There is such a danger. Unfortunately, our Western partners no longer consider the Ukrainian problem a priority for themselves. For them, Russia’s war against Ukraine is an issue that they seek to remove from the agenda on any conditions, in particular at the expense of our country’s interests. The proposals for resuming economic cooperation with the Russian Federation are growing louder. But Ukraine is trying to squeeze into the background only short-sighted politicians who do not understand the threat to their own countries. It is impossible to restore order in Europe and in the world, when aggression and force, rather than law, law, human interests, are crucial without understanding the weight of what is happening in our country. 

The old order established in Europe after the Second World War has been destroyed by Russia. Since 2014, Ukrainians have not simply defended their country, but have hindered Russia’s aggressive promotion to Europe. Ukraine has become an outpost, the eastern frontier of European civilization. It must be understood that the danger of a major armed conflict in the face of unpredictable totalitarian Russian power is the reality of today. Those who are thinking about the future of Europe should see to it that Ukraine stands and wins. It is a chance to restore order, based on law, freedom and inviolability of borders. If Russia turns the situation in its favor, the medieval principle of “who is stronger, right is right” will prevail again. And this is the path to a new global military confrontation. 

How vulnerable is Ukraine in the information field? 

– In a hybrid war, the information component is extremely important. The Russians pay special attention to this and have brought some technologies to automatism: first comes Russian television and then Russian tanks. And even tanks are not always needed: if active propaganda can bring a puppet-controlled government to power, military intervention is not necessary. The task of information warfare is to break people’s ability to resist, to sow despair, despair, distrust of their own state. We saw this in the Crimea, when local residents, poisoned by Russian propaganda, believed massively that they would come from Kiev to kill for the Russian language on behalf of the “junta”, and therefore supported military aggression. 

It is not true to say that today we are protected from Russian information technologies. Of course, we have done a lot since 2014. The press of the Russian press and the broadcasting of Russian TV channels were banned. Although worrying, they have recently reappeared with cable and Internet TV operators. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine works without rest, and Ukraine’s theme remains a priority for them. There is even a certain pattern: if Russian TV rhetoric about Ukraine becomes tougher, one should expect an escalation at the front.  
At one time we also banned access to some Russian sites and social networks. This was not easy. From the first days after the victory of the Dignity Revolution, we had two tasks: to protect the country and to move along the path of European integration. The European partners have been very keen on our social networking intentions. We had to explain why we were doing it. Only the NATO leadership supported us, because they understood that it was about information security, not about restricting freedom of expression. We also hear a lot of criticism from the West when it comes to the need to shut down television channels domestically. Although it is clear that we are talking about the media that work in the system of Russian interests. Freedom of expression cannot be a cover for information aggression against our country. 

Equally important is the issue of cybersecurity. Ukraine has made considerable progress in this area. There have been many powerful attacks on our critical infrastructure, government agencies and more. We have come to that conclusion. A National Cybersecurity Coordination Center was established to unite the efforts of all authorities involved in the field, a single protocol for localization of cyber incidents was worked out, exchange of information with our Western partners was established, and a protective loop for state electronic resources was started. I must point out that all the systems that have been protected by this circuit have withstood quite strong cyberattacks that have occurred over the last two years. We have had presidential and parliamentary elections, but no one knows about the powerful cyber-attacks during this period because they were professionally localized. 

In order to protect Ukraine in both information and cyber space, modern technologies are needed that allow us to track and block any hostile manifestations. In developed countries, such systems exist. Deploying them requires legislative support. We have tried several times to submit a bill to Parliament that was intended to enhance cybersecurity, but populists shouted that it was an offensive against free speech on the Internet and so on. So the initiative was blocked.

Information warfare is not just prohibitive methods. Russia spends a tremendous amount of money on its propaganda. We do not have this opportunity, and it is unlikely that it will be available in the near future. At the same time, US security experts say that, despite the vast defense budgets of NATO countries, they are not always able to successfully counter the ISIL information campaigns, which have very limited but effective tools of influence. Do we have the opportunity to counter-attack Russia in the information war by possessing rather modest financial resources? Do you think the prospect of creating a Russian-language Ukrainian TV channel, which President Zelensky talks about, is a good solution? 

– Ukraine should be able to act asymmetrically in the face of aggression. Cyber ​​weapons today are no wonder compared to weapons of mass destruction. We must have an active defense in this space, but I do not think it is worthwhile to announce appropriate developments. As for the information component itself, there may be enough activity in social networks for guerrilla subversion. In contrast to Russia, this is obviously not enough. A simple example: Many have been on holiday abroad and have seen that there is usually a set of TV channels in hotels. Among them you will definitely find some Russian and no Ukrainian. We need to have a quality information product and resources to promote it. Our foreign policy bodies should also work in the information field. The diplomatic counter-propaganda work is very important. Not always, our ambassadors abroad provide information in the media on new aggressive plans of the Russian Federation or deny Russian false messages. To convey our position in the world, we need, first of all, not a Russian-language channel, but an English-language channel. 

In the humanitarian sphere, Ukraine is also often accused of violating the rights of national minorities and criticizing our language legislation. Perhaps it makes sense to explain to Western partners that Ukraine is a post-colonial state, so it has every reason to pursue a will-oriented policy to protect its identity? 

– This is an extremely important question. Here is an example. I was born and raised in the Dnieper, graduated from high school there, graduated. In all that time he has not met in the city a person who would speak Ukrainian at the household level. It seemed that it would continue to be so. When I moved to Kiev to work as an adviser to the Prime Minister in the early 1990s, I had to write speeches with my vocabulary until I learned the language. Colonial heritage in the form of shameful ignorance of the mother tongue was the norm at that time. I believe that during the period of independence, especially in the last five years, many steps have been taken to change the situation in the humanitarian field. Radio and television quotas, the law of the language, are significant achievements that are important to lose. It cannot be questioned what has become the norm for society. National identity is also an important component of national security. The war united the Ukrainians no matter what language they spoke at the domestic level. And that is why all the national identity restoration activities inside the country have been quite calm, despite the hysteria of Russian propaganda.  

The current president’s team has voices saying that language policy should be revised, and different tax rates should be introduced for the Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking product. Do they not understand that the Russians will not save money for their presence in Ukraine?

– First of all, I would like to point out that there is a positive that after becoming president, Volodymyr Zelensky officially spoke only in Ukrainian. Second, it does not call into question the constitutional status of the language. At the same time, you are surrounded by the initiatives you have mentioned. I think that civil society should take a clear position on this issue and protect the property of the Revolution of Dignity. In matters of protection of Ukrainian identity, one cannot turn back. All efforts to “engage the rear gear” will increase the influence of the Russian Federation and in accordance with the internal political crisis.

How to explain the speed of change in public sentiment? Few could have foreseen Brexit, the victory of Donald Trump in the US and Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine…

– We live in an information society, it has completely different mechanisms, the function of the state is changing, its influence is sharply reduced. Moreover, when we talk about Ukraine, the role of parties has fallen sharply. Until the last election, success largely depended on the party network, the presence of the party’s assets and the depth of penetration of its cells. Instead, today we see the confrontation, not of parties, but of information resources, which have become decisive. As for Vladimir Zelensky, I was aware of his presidential perspective even when I saw the reaction of many Ukrainians to the new series “Servant of the People”. There was a demand for new faces and a recipe for solving complex problems quickly (which is not always always effective). These two expectations met at one point, brightly highlighted by the hours-long series and powerful informational resources. Of course, There were also miscalculations of the previous authorities: weak communication, ineffective fight against corruption, insufficient counteraction to Russian information aggression. The thesis that the authorities do not want to end the war because it benefits them, Russian propagandists killed many Ukrainians. 

In today’s world there is a growing demand for conservatism (the USA, Poland, Denmark – there are no examples). At the same time, in Ukraine, not least thanks to NGO functionaries of the left-liberal movement, the myth of the alternative to the liberal path is being instilled. Anything that does not fit into that discourse is something not contemporary, a scoop and embroideries. How to explain this phenomenon?

– I touched on this issue in my article Neomarxism, or Journey to the Abyss, and tried to explain that Christian and conservative currents are not a monopoly of the Russian Federation or the birth of a scoop. They are the key to successful nation-building and have nothing to do with Russian imperial fetishism. All the successful evangelical foundations of the modern Western states – the USA, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, etc. – were founded as major Protestant countries. Many underestimate the importance of this foundation, and if it is destroyed, the modern world will be destroyed. When morality, faith, responsibility are destroyed, the very Apocalypse, of which the Holy Scripture warns us, will come. 

How can Ukraine get into the latest conservative trend if Russia has the image of a spiritless fighter on this flank of the European political party? 

– Where is Russia and where is Christian morality? These are incompatible things. Russia’s attempt to disguise its immorality and aggressiveness under neo-conservative doctrines is doomed. But Moscow, masking its brutal grin, is trying to play with conservative currents in modern Europe, and that is a challenge for us. We must show that Christian conservative ideology is inherent in Ukrainians. What exactly Ukraine, as a Christian state, can exemplify David’s success and victory over Goliath. The crisis of the left-liberal world has led to devastating centrifugal trends in the EU, an increase in populism and the collapse of the collective security system. Therefore, I am convinced that a great, strong and independent Ukrainian state can only be built on the unbreakable foundation of eternal Christian values.  

————————-

Alexander Turchinov was born in 1964 in the Dnieper. In 1986 he graduated from the Dnipropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute. Doctor of Economics, Professor. Elected People’s Deputy to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of six convocations. In 2005 he was appointed chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine, in 2007-2010 – the first deputy prime minister in the government of Yulia Tymoshenko. On February 22, 2014 he was elected Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, until June 2014 he was in. at. of the President of Ukraine. 2014–2019 – Secretary of the NSDC.

(c) Tyzhden