Merezhko Oleksandr, the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs and Interparliamentary Relations of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (parliament), sat down with Al Majalla to discuss whether the Russian war on Ukraine has reached a stalemate as it enters its third year.
Oleksandr spoke from the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, where he shared his views on why he believes Russia has suffered a strategic defeat, what he thinks is a fair and just solution to the war and whether financial corruption in his country has become chronic.
Oleksandr is a professor of international law in several academic institutions in the West, including the University of Kyiv and Dickinson University School of Law, Pennsylvania (USA).
Below is the transcript in full
What is the next stage in the war, as both sides haven’t been able to make meaningful gains in recent months?
We had two stages or phases of the war. In the first stage, Russia attempted a blitzkrieg war to take over Kyiv within three days and to occupy most of the territory of the whole territory of Ukraine within a month or so, which failed.
Now, we have entered the second phase of war, which is a war of attrition. The critical question is who will outlast whom. To win this war, we need constant support from our allies; we need what is known as sustenance. Around 20% of the Ukrainian territory has been occupied by Russian troops.
However, Russia has suffered a strategic defeat because it has failed to achieve its maximalist goals, like taking Kyiv, occupying most of the territories and installing a puppet regime.
Read more: Ukraine offensive makes waves in the Black Sea
Ukraine has already liberated around 50% of the territory which Russia had previously occupied since 24 February 2022.
The third achievement is that we managed to drive Russia out of the Black Sea. The Black Sea is no longer under the Russian Navy’s control. So, to me, these are very important achievements.
Was the sacked army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi more realistic than President Volodymyr Zelensky in his assessment of the war?
I don't see any serious contradictions in the positions of Commander in Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and Zelensky. To me, they follow the same strategy.
But Valerii Zaluzhnyi did say that the war reached a stalemate.
I think this was a linguistic misunderstanding. Some politicians misuse the term stalemate. It has certain negative connotations.
There is a school of thought in the West in the minority that says there’s a stalemate. They mean an impasse since a stalemate would mean we should start negotiations with Putin.
Zaluzhnyi didn't mean stalemate in this sense. What he meant, and what I understand to be the goal of his article published in The Economist, was different. He wanted to appeal to our Western allies to give us more weaponry to prevent this ‘stalemate’ or ‘impasse’ from setting in and taking hold.
This was the goal of his article, but he's not a diplomat. And to me, he didn’t use the most appropriate term. He used it without understanding what kind of connotation it has in the West.
What he meant was that, to prevent such an impasse, we need to be provided with enough weaponry and ammunition to continue the liberation of our territories and to continue our counter-offensive.
Was Zaluzhnyi a scapegoat for the failure of the counter-offensive last year?
Well, first of all, I don't consider it a failure for the reasons I have mentioned above, and I have given you the facts. It was not a failure, even though we were outnumbered and outgunned.
You can imagine how difficult it is to fight a war against a superpower that has limitless human resources, manpower, and weaponry. Although it's low quality, they have a larger quantity.
I don't think he was a scapegoat in this situation because he was dismissed at the height of his popularity. Many people continue to respect him. It's normal to change the military command after two years of full-scale war.
What is a just and fair solution to the war with Russia in your view?
I'm a professor of international law and view it from the perspective of international law. To me, there is only one just solution to restore international law in the region in Europe: a complete withdrawal of Russian troops.
The answer to this question can be found in the resolution adopted recently by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This resolution says that negotiations for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine can be started only on Ukraine’s terms because Ukraine is the victim of unprovoked Russian aggression.
Read more: The war in Ukraine is far from over
And our condition is that Russia withdraws all its troops from the whole territory of Ukraine and also Crimea. These are the prerequisites for starting peace talks.
We need to restore international law, and we also need justice. Russia has destroyed more than 30% of the Ukrainian economy. As the aggressor, it should pay compensation and reparations to reverse the damage caused by Russian aggression. This is also a requirement under international law.
