Oleksandra Romantsova: Financing Regional Defense in War

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/03/11

*Interview conducted February 5, 2024.*

Ms. Oleksandra Romantsova is the Executive Director (2018-present) of the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022 under her and others’ leadership in documenting war crimes. This will be a live series on human rights from a leading expert in an active context from Kyiv, Ukraine, to complement live on-the-ground war coverage in the war zones from Romanian humanist independent journalist Remus Cernea. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are back for round 3. We talked about Prigozhin’s suspicious and untimely death in a plane crash. Today, we will talk about funding, politics, and scandal. International financial relations and internal politics seem to be the two themes here. What are some significant updates regarding the EU in general about the upbeat side of international financing for Ukraine?

Oleksandra Romantsova: The EU has finally decided to support us. It will be many for the social part of our budget. Because, you know, 60% of our budget goes from EU support or other partner support, from Canada, for example. In our economy, 40% still produces. We use it to produce guns and to give salaries for all of our army. It is many people. Five times more than peaceful times in terms of personnel. What does this mean? It means the EU, first of all, has a deal with Orban’s Hungarian guys. 

One week before, we had Slovakian guys here. These guys started to support Orban, “Yes, we will, maybe, not support Ukraine.” But we speak. They just met at Uzhgorod (The city is the center of the region of Ukraine closest to the EU borders. During the entire period from the beginning of the invasion, the Russians were not fired upon.) They cannot come to Kyiv because Kyiv was shelled at the moment.  They started saying that “There is no war in Kyiv at all – everyday life is there. But we will not go there. We will meet in Uzhgorod.” [Laughing]. 

It is a big question. How will we move? We have this budget now. It is not budget enough to cover everything needed for our fight, for our defence, because, now, the problem is munitions, e.g., bullets and artillery shells. It is specific munitions. We do not have enough now. So, why so? When the USA gives us support, partly, they give this by money. They use the money to buy shells in the military industry to produce military items. In the USA, they give us shells. That is why we are waiting. The second decision is the decision from the USA Congress. The USA Congress is mixing the three questions: support Ukraine, support Israel, and the migration crisis. 

It is a big problem because it is before the elections. The Republican Party, on one side, wants to support but wants to push the Democratic Party to solve or accept their decision about migrants. So, now, it is a significant pain for us. Our army is there without shells. It means we don`t have any active moves. It becomes impossible. 

Europe, first of all, the German and French presidents speak about if the USA cannot do that, cannot give us enough money; Europe needs to be prepared to cover this order by themselves. They actively speak about it. Why so? They argue that other bills will cost much more if Ukraine falls. They feel that the USA cannot do that because of the fighting between two parts of Congress. It means Europe can take all of this responsibility by themselves. It is the same logic. It is logical. It exists like this. Do we have a panic? No. 

Our economy is entirely frozen. It is interesting. You can see working shops, malls, and supermarkets in Ukraine. They are full. You can see Ukraine produces many products and goods that they produced before. You have open restaurants and banks. However, it is only a tiny part of our economy. It is a lot about money taken from our place and to troops, from roads and so on. Part of our many is coming from our place, internally. Secondly, it is for sure grain. We produce a lot when we have these measures to export so much grain. We have a business here for grain, sunflower, and other agriculture because it is the best soil in the world. So we can push our economy full-scale. 

That is why we need to have support from Europe and the USA. We need a decision. So, now, the frontlines do not have many changes. We hear about Russia trying to push out our guys from some region of Donetsk Oblast, but still, they are fighting for it. Now, it is not moving a lot. Sure, we want to release everyone because every day is an occupation. It is not changing the flag. It is an everyday war crime. Every day, it is killing people and destroying city and, land and territory. A territory where millions of people live. It is a lot.

Jacobsen: What about the military chief and the president?

Romantsova: The head of our army. He is popular in the army. You need to understand respect and trust from soldiers. It is essential to argue why this person needs to be there. It is always a question because political management and politics exist. It takes part in all of this war. They bring in money. They bring in support. They put the main goals, so the president sets the goals. “We need to release Crimea” or something. Nobody knows what is happening inside in terms of communication between them. Outside, it looks terrible. It looks like they do not have regular communication and do not have a standard way to speak with all other populations. For us, it is unnerving. Seriously, you decided to have a scandal between the two of you, now? It takes much emotion because we do not have other political moves around this. We do not have a scandal between a party. We do not see what happens in the parliamentary session because it is closed for security reasons now. That means that it looks like an empty place for a political movement. It needs to be much less paid attention to, to me. Yes, it is possible. Now, every day, our newspapers will talk about Valerii Zaluzhnyi being replaced any day. This sort of thing. What happened after? Do we have good enough military management? I think so. Do they choose a good enough general who gives some results? We do not know [Laughing]. So, it is this way.

Jacobsen: What about Sevastopol?

Romantsova: Yes, it is a city in the Crimean Peninsula. This city always has a special status. For example, Kyiv has a special status, like a region. Sevastopol has a special status. In Crimea, you have a capital city. However, Sevastopol is the biggest port in Crimea. That was a place in the Russian navy base. We have this agreement that the Russian navy can stay in Crimea. It was a prolonged by Yanukovych agreement. However, Sevastopol is a big port. Now, it is shelled a lot from the Ukrainian side. Because the headquarters of the Russian troops and fleet is based there.

Jacobsen: Right, okay. The ICJ, the International Court of Justice, has agreed that the case will go forward for Ukraine. 

Romantsova: We have two cases. The first case coming to Court in 2017 was the International Court of Justice of the UN. We took two conventions. First of all, the financial support of terrorist activity. So, Ukraine complained that Russia supported LPR and DPR. They act like a terrorist. Russia financially supported terrorists. That is the first convention. The second convention is the discrimination of Tartars in Crimea. So, it is the convention to protect people from discrimination based on ethnicity. So, in this case, the video was taken from 2014 to 2017. They appealed in 2017. This case had a decision. It was a decision of what we can say for Ukraine. The Court recognized a connection with the Russian Federation, but not that the Russian Federation gives them money. When we talk about Russian weapon on Luhansk, it is “sorry, not financial support.” It is tricky. It was the subject of the convention. The convention only focuses on financial support. They recognize that Russia took part in the war in 2014. 

Regarding ethnic discrimination, the Court recognizes Ukrainian ethnic discrimination/ethnic discrimination of Ukrainians in education in Crimea, but not about Crimean Tartars.

That was a specific answer because they are a recognized minority.  Unfortunately, the fact that Mejlis and Kurultai were banned by the occupying power of the Russians was not recognized by the court as discrimination against the Crimean Tatars. Mejlis and Kurultai – It is a system of political self-representation of Crimean Tartars. It were not recognized as permanent ethnic representatives of Crimean Tartars. Although Russia did not just ban, but recognized them as a terrorist organization on its territory. Ukraine will be continuing in this way. So, we will have recognition of the ethnic discrimination against Ukrainians. 

In addition, on January 31, a decision was made regarding another case filed by Ukraine and a group of other countries against the Russian Federation. Ukraine appealed to the International Court of Justice regarding the Genocide Convention on February 26, 2024, after the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation.  Both countries recognized it and ratified it. In the world, you only have three reasons for having enough arguments to start a war:  

1. The war is without any reason. “I simply want to start a war.” That is called aggression.
2. The second reason is defending. An example of defending is when Russia shells Ukraine. After this, we attack her. A formal counter to the aggression. 
3. The third reason can be to stop genocide.

So, Russia talked about a mythological genocide of Russian ethnics in the Donbas region. Who they are? [Laughing] We do not know. Russian-speaking people are like my family?  Because my family is Russian-speaking – we did not need any defending. They talked about Ukraine making a ‘genocide.’ That is why they – Russians – are coming to protect us from this genocide. Exactly that, it was the subject of this complaint. Ukraine complained to the International Court of Justice. “Guys, we want you to look inside the framework of this convention about genocide. We did not have genocide before Russians came here.” They recognize it. So, they recognize that this is not a decision in the end. “We see this situation. We have jurisdiction. Use this convention to look at this situation and decide if it is a genocide or not.” 

Now, Russia needs to bring up all the arguments that we here in Ukraine have any politics of genocide of some Russian population or something. It is impossible. For many, many years, Russians pushed this message that the Ukrainian population is like Nazis. They discriminate against people with Russian-speaking skills. So, it is not finished. This will not be finished until we have a decision. The International Court of Justice must have a decision before. That Russia does not have any arguments. That is why they are told to stop their “special military operation.”

Jacobsen: Didn’t Putin slip up recently and call it a war? Putin was talking about what was previously called a special military operation in an interview and accidentally called it a war. This is more than a gaffe.

Romantsova: When they realized that they could not fight according to the propaganda of genocide, they argued then that NATO was prepared to attack us. “So, we are – Russians –  self-defending”! 

Jacobsen: So, they have gone from anti-genocide to self-defence. 

Romantsova: When they understand the law, they will never have enough arguments about coming to Ukraine. They started this genocide because “NATO was preparing to attack us. We are using self-defence against NATO attack”. 

Jacobsen: To parse that, having the three reasons put forward between no reason, self-defence, and genocide prevention.

Romantsova: It is simply aggression because no one has a mechanism to judge aggression. The last aggression was “crimes against peace” in the WW2. So, after this, nobody except the UN Security Council can bring some international intervention. Russia is there. China is there. So, we will never have a reaction to Russian aggression against Ukraine through the Security Council with Ukraine through the UN. 

Jacobsen: So, that first option, we are simply engaging in military aggression. It is a non-starter. You are setting yourself up for trouble with international law and rights.

Romantsova: Yes, because we do not have a mechanism to answer if someone started aggression. Because of this, it will be okay if you are trying to stop genocide or if you are in self-defence. If you do it as aggression, you decide to take this part of the land. It is aggression. You will be held to the mechanism of the UN. Now, they choose: If it is not genocide, we will speak about how it is self-defence. 

Jacobsen: So, the flip there, the original reason was to prevent genocide. 

Romantsova: At the beginning.

Jacobsen: Then it was self-defence. It sounds like they did not realize the trouble they would get into now. 

Romantsova:  Look, the reaction for Crimea occupation and Donbas war was so low; it was the same as previously in the reaction for the Georgia and Moldova cases. “Russia is a big army. They do something. It was the small places where they attacked.  So, we will not react.”  Because this previous action was so small, they decided to bite more. When the occupation of Crimea and Donbas started, we told them. “War is coming. If you do not react, they will try to bite more.” Now, it is happening like this. The whole world security system is stuck because no one knows what to do; nobody has instructions on what to do. If one of the members of the Security Council of the UN is the aggressor…

Jacobsen: …not only that! One of the aggressors on the UN Security Council with Veto power.

Romantsova: Exactly.

Jacobsen: Because they are a Permanent Member.

Romantsova: It is power.

Jacobsen: There are countries in the world – this is a more significant point on a geopolitical and international base – where some actors or Member States would like to rewrite the international order in a more self-interested way, not an internationalist way.

Romantsova: Yes.

Jacobsen: Does this leave them room to do so?

Romantsova: We need to rebuild the security system. However, it is essential. We need to rebuild it with the basis of human rights values because it is easy to decide. “Okay, human rights are not so important now. Security is more important.” That is why we see a solid security system as one of our goals. They will try and create a new one. It is essential for all of us, whether humanists or human rights defenders, to work on this basic system. Now, if you look at the OSCE, you will find that they started to not care about human rights. They will say, “Human rights will be when we have peace and a high enough economic development level. After this, we will have human rights.” No, bringing back human rights as one of the constant points inside this security system is essential. Now, we feel it. We need to defend it for Ukraine and the whole world. The human rights system was created for the prevention or reaction of wars. Ukraine has resistant potential only because, before that – for 30 years, we have had freedom of speech and association. These groups of freedoms give you tools to protect yourself. We use it. We create new initiatives. People can join themselves. We can create a political party and speak louder about what we want. The Russian army cannot figure out who the centre of decision-making is because the centre is everywhere. Because human rights give you flexibility and responsibility inside the whole population. This population has the tools to join themselves to units in different ways and then react. If you do not have an army, you can create an army after four years if people feel they have enough free space to fund each other and then start to prepare themselves. That is what happened with Azov because we have freedom of speech and freedom of information. Because you can download manuals. You can download or create new businesses because you have the freedom of an entrepreneur. So, people can create new bodyguards, drones, and all of this because it is freedom. Freedom is social freedom and human rights. These give you flexibility. You prevent wars. You can react against aggression because of freedom. Because of your human rights. 

What happened at Russia? How did war and Russia decide to start this in the first place? Because 20 years before, they cut their human rights at Russian society. They cut freedom of speech. They cut freedom of assembly. They cut freedom of association.

Ultimately, it is always war—one of the biggest challenges for all of us, not just Ukraine. Imagine tomorrow, we fall. I move from here. I am dying. All of that. What happens? Imagine this: Tomorrow, we are all dead. Ukraine does not exist. Ukraine is not fighting anymore. What does this mean? It means the world has a vast, massive challenge because Russia will know: “it does not need to respect any human rights; just concentrates all the resources of big system and controls all the people through propaganda. This model is a win”.

This means that all 24 countries that have a democratic structure – from ~200 – will start to be like a small group of marginals. So, it matters. We think now, not only about us. So, that is why it is a big challenge for all of us.

Jacobsen: I have one last question. So, there are well-respected international intellectuals with a prominent stature. They make a counterargument from a lot of Western presentations of Russian aggression against Ukraine. They will state, “We are against the Russian aggression against Ukraine. We do not think Russia stating some hypothetical genocide as some vacation for this aggression,” or the more recent idea about self-defence. “We Russians are defending ourselves against aggression.” They make a historical case back to the Soviet Union, where there was a promise not one inch to the east for NATO expansionism. They look at NATO expansionism as provocative or a provocation on the part of the West against Russia, and, therefore, they may not necessarily agree with the extent of the aggression, but they see this as understandable on the part of the Russian Federation and President Vladimir Putin. What is a Ukrainian orientation on this?

Romantsova: First of all, Ukraine needs to be part of NATO. That is all. When we speak about this expansion of NATO, if it is a good union, why can’t you join it? Why do you think that it is aggressive? Can you remind me of the last time when NATO did something aggressive against the Russians? In 2006, Russia did ask to be a member of NATO. What the fuck, seriously? When was the last time NATO shelled Russia or did something aggressive in the post-Soviet era? It has not happened ever. The previous two years, I think, were all the Covid time. NATO’s base in Europe sent back different guns to the USA. Europe, NATO does not precisely have itself heavily armed.

Jacobsen: So, they dearmed from Europe back to the United States. 

Romantsova: All of these bases. They collected. They do not have the tools exactly to attack someone. When you think about NATO, you think about… I do not know what, an army of tanks? First of all, it is a system of information and a system of self-defending. It is not the main topic. The main topic is that we need to understand from one side. All this action from the Russian side. It has put the Europe question. Do we need to have an army or not? They made a decision: Yes. Now, they put a budget or cut budget inside of the countries to give more money for the army, not for a comfortable life as they did before. It is to have an army to produce guns, shelling, etc. If the Russian aim was to make less of a NATO representation, to make it less aggressive, then the aggression was the wrong strategy to attack someone near the border of NATO. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time today.

Further Internal Resources (Chronological, yyyy/mm/dd):

Humanist

Humanists International, Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United Nations (2024/01/08)

Personal

The Long Happenstance of Iceland and Copenhagen (2023/12/09)

Romanian

Remus Cernea on Independent War Correspondence in Ukraine (2023/08/25)

Zaporizhzhia Field Interview With Remus Cernea (2024/02/21)

War and Destruction With Remus Cernea (2024/02/22)

Ukrainian

Ms. Oleksandra Romantsova on Ukraine and Putin (2023/09/01)

Oleksandra Romantsova on Prigozhin and Amnesty International (2023/12/03)

Dr. Roman Nekoliak on International Human Rights and Ukraine (2023/12/23)

Sorina Kiev: Being a Restauranteur During Russo-Ukrainian War (2024/01/27)

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.