Ukraine shows Scotland why independence cannot wait

The National

21 hours ago

Even the most cursory glance at the letters or comments sections show they are replete with righteous indignation whenever a perceived slight towards Scotland is detected.
Such comments also serve as confirmation – were it needed – that as Scots, we often take exception to others speaking on our behalf, not least when their prime motivation is self-serving and to Scotland's detriment.
Any sovereign nation is entitled to have its own voice, make its own decisions, instead of others doing it for them, which brings me to Ukraine and the recent flurry of diplomacy surrounding Russia's war on the country.
READ MORE: Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: 'Independence first, everything later' is doomed to fail
Writing in The National yesterday, my colleague Mark Brown characterised this ongoing diplomacy as little more than 'inter-imperialist rivalries' and the war in Ukraine as being one not of 'liberation' but 'a proxy war between Russia and the nominal West'.
On one level I would agree and in this column have often acknowledged that fear of Nato expansionism was undoubtedly a contributing factor behind Russia's land grab and invasion.
But whatever really lay behind Russia's motivation, an illegal invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state, which it undeniably was, and Ukraine's subsequent fight to retain its independence free from Kremlin control is both understandable and justified.
It's important never to lose sight of this. For as this war has dragged on, the concerns, desires and wishes of Ukrainians themselves seem to have been increasingly overlooked or outright ignored.
The war Ukrainians are waging to repel the Russian invasion is not only about the freedom of a people to choose their place in Europe, but as they see it, it's also about defending democracy itself.
And speaking of Ukraine's democratic credentials, you need look no further than the recent surge of civic mobilisation that made Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy think again and reverse his decision, restoring the independence of the two bodies responsible for combating corruption.
The very fact that these public protests were possible while the country was under martial law and were responded to positively by those in power, speaks volumes about the health of Ukraine's democratic vibrancy.
Can you imagine anything comparable happening on the streets of Moscow or St Petersburg on Vladimir Putin's watch?
READ MORE: Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? A legal expert explains
Watching Ukraine's fate and its people's desire for freedom once again resting on the whims of the Trump administration has been an unedifying spectacle to say the least.
Donald Trump and his special envoy sidekick the credulous Steve Witkoff are to diplomacy what a sputtering candle is to a supernova.
As was evident in Anchorage and then a few days later at the White House, optics matter more to Trump than substance.
The simple inescapable fact is that Trump will never be able to process the fundamental reality that most Ukrainians and other neighbouring countries in the region have long recognised.
In short, Ukraine like Georgia and others in the region want to be secure, sovereign and independent, while Russia wants to subjugate and control their destiny. Recognising this, let alone putting in train a diplomatic strategy to assist Ukraine in achieving such aims, is frankly beyond Trump and Witkoff's abilities.
Speaking to Ukrainians from here or whenever I visit the country, time and again I hear them say the last thing they need right now is Trump's flip-flopping approach.
Just as it's evident in Trump's on-off tariffs and trade relations, so it's the same when it comes to diplomacy over Ukraine, resulting in more chaos and volatility rather than solid moves towards peace and stability.
Ukrainians are also acutely aware that Trump's tendency is to reflect the views of the last person he has spoken to or to be more precise, who has flattered him. In Anchorage it was Putin, in Washington it was the Europeans.
This is the diplomatic tightrope that Zelenskyy has to walk. Those that opine from afar that Zelenskyy should cede territory for peace need to try putting themselves in his position or indeed that of his fellow citizens.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour MSP Colin Smyth issues statement after 'indecent images' arrest
To those outside it might seem like small price to pay for ending a war that has lasted three and half years and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. But the future of the country's borders and the security implications that come with them is more than the kind of run of the mill real-estate deal that is Trump and Witkoff's raison d'être.
Anyway, it is not within Zelenskyy's 'gift' to hand over under Ukraine's territory as any changes would have to be settled inside the country by a referendum, according to Article 73 of the country's constitution.
The question can only be put to a referendum by popular initiative if the signatures of three million eligible Ukrainian voters are gathered from at least two thirds of the country's regions.
This is not to say that it will never happen as part of any diplomatic process and were Ukraine offered strong and reliable security guarantees, it could become easier for Zelenskyy's government to consider such concessions on territory.
While a recent Gallup poll suggested that 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, the same polls also unequivocally showed that most Ukrainians are not prepared to formally concede territory in exchange for peace.
In other words, it's unlikely that Zelenskyy would accept the loss of any territory putting in jeopardy – as such a move would – Ukraine's future security and his own political survival.
These past few days as the international diplomatic band wagon has rolled on, there has been a lot of form but very little by way of content produced so far.
If there are grounds for cautious optimism then it should certainly not come at the expense of what Ukrainian themselves want by way of an outcome. This is paramount.
They after all are the ones that were invaded, have seen their people bombed, murdered, raped, tortured and abducted by Russian forces.
Like any independent, sovereign nation, they must continue to have their own voice heard. They must be a central part of decision making that ultimately affects them most.
Above all, they should not be steamrollered by others making such decisions on their behalf purely out of self-interest.
To put this in some kind of context for those of us here, would you really expect anything different were Scotland to find itself in such a challenging position?