Source:
landsbergis.com
(Gabrielius Landsbergis is a Lithuanian politician and diplomat who served as Lithuania's Minister of Foreign Affairs from December 2020 until November 2024)
The shameful plan to betray Ukraine "de facto, but not de jure"
If Ukraine has no choice but to accept “de facto” occupation — that’s because WE failed.
Not because Ukrainians failed, not because some mysterious “shit happened”, but because for years we ignored all the warnings, repeated all the mistakes of history, kicked the can down the road and refused to do what it takes to defend the rules and principles that enable sustainable peace and prosperity. This is on us.
We are the architects of this de facto defeat, so now we are trying to pretend it came out of nowhere and we did the best we could to stop it. In a spectacular display of unbombed westsplaining,
Mark Rutte is suggesting that everything will be OK in the long run, like it was OK in the Baltic States after decades of de facto occupation by jolly old Uncle Joe Stalin.
Well, I have shrugged off a lot of dumb hot takes about my country over the last few years, but this one is literally sickening. Rutte is revealing that the latest genius 5D chess move to save Ukraine is to casually throw millions of people into a black hole of oppression, torture, rape, kidnapping, murder and destruction of national identity — “de facto, but not de jure”.
And the proponents of this plan will keep a straight face while they cite the misery of the occupation of the Baltic States as a shining example that Ukraine should happily walk into.
In his FT column,
Gideon Rachman says little to fill the gap in Rutte’s world view:
"The Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic states after 1940 was never legally recognised by the US and most European countries. But it was a fact of life, until, eventually, the Baltic states regained their independence."
Yikes, let’s unpack that.
The occupation wasn’t “a fact of life”, it was a fact of death.
“Eventually” was after decades of deportations, killing, grinding terror and violent attempts to turn everybody into russians.
“Regained their independence” was being crushed under Gorbachev’s tanks while western leaders pleaded with us to give up our fight for freedom.
So… this is the path to peace we are supposed to offer to Ukraine with a smile? These are the glorious new security guarantees that will erase the shame of the Budapest Agreement and allow Ukrainians to have faith in the future?
There are even
US Ambassadors talking about how countries can “earn” certain territories and therefore presumably “deserve” them. Would it be paranoid of me to wonder if we just opened the door for Russia to “earn” Narva and Vilnius “de facto”?
If Ukraine continues to fight, you will soon hear mumblings that the “stubborn Ukrainians” refuse to comprehend the genius of this “realistic” peace plan that, in reality, would move Putin’s weapons closer to Kyiv.
We will hear more condemnation of Ukraine for daring to complain instead of saying thank you twice.
As I wrote recently, I see parallels in Churchill’s abandonment of Eastern Europe to Stalin, and now I see Mark Rutte on TV broadcasting the echoes of that particularly nasty betrayal.
So I would ask all decisionmakers discussing their various technical office-based solutions to also talk to victims of Russia’s aggression and learn a little bit more about the “reality on the ground” that these plans are supposed to be dealing with.
I would suggest talking to the friends and family of
Viktoriia Roschyna, a journalist who was recently laid to rest in Kyiv. Her body was returned after two years in Russian hands, her brain and eyes removed. Ask her parents if they recognise the “reality” presented to them in Alaska. Time and time again you will find that the “realistic” proposals being floated for our security appear naive and insulting to anyone who has any experience of living under occupation by Moscow.
We democracies and self-declared allies of Ukraine should be ashamed by our failure to keep Ukrainians safe. We should be determined to change course, not inspired to invent semantic tools that reduce our responsibility, reward the aggressor and erase the victim’s humanity.
When I ask to defend basic principles with honour, am I asking too much?
The difference between de facto and de jure does not matter to a woman being raped in front of her children. She cannot comfort them afterwards by telling them their trauma is de facto, not de jure.
The difference between de facto and de jure matters only to politicians discussing paper agreements that they know will not work and will not be defended. Only in their unbombed minds can their approach be called “realistic”.
