The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has brought to the forefront a complex debate between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. The war, which has pitted pro-Russian Ukrainians against pro-Western Ukrainians, raises the question: when these two principles clash, which one should take precedence?
In the case of Ukraine, the argument for self-determination is not only morally compelling but also practical. While territorial integrity has traditionally been seen as a cornerstone of international law, the current situation suggests that the will of the people, particularly in contested regions, should hold more weight than formal territorial claims.
The Historical Divide: Pro-Russian vs. Pro-Western Ukrainians
Ukraine has long been a nation split by political and cultural divisions. The pro-Russian government that once ruled Ukraine had strong ties to Russia, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the country, where many citizens felt a stronger cultural affinity with Russia. However, the shift towards a pro-Western government in recent years has fueled a dramatic political realignment. This change has not been embraced by all Ukrainians, particularly those in the east, where a significant portion of the population continues to feel connected to Russia.
The central government in Kyiv, which is now aligned with Western interests, has increasingly clashed with those who feel their cultural and political preferences are underrepresented. These pro-Russian Ukrainians have sought greater autonomy or independence, arguing that their desire for self-determination has been denied in favor of a state agenda that aligns more with Europe and NATO.
Why Self-Determination Should Take Precedence
1. Cultural and Political Identity
The eastern regions of Ukraine, particularly Donetsk and Luhansk, have strong historical, cultural, and familial ties to Russia. These areas have long identified with Russia and continue to do so even as Ukraine pursues a Western-oriented path. The desire for self-determination in these regions stems from the feeling that their identity is being ignored by a government that is pushing for integration with the West, a direction that many in these regions do not wish to follow.
Forcing these areas to remain part of Ukraine without considering their cultural and political preferences is not merely a territorial issue but a matter of identity. Just as the people of other nations have fought for the right to determine their future, the people in these regions of Ukraine deserve the same right to choose how they wish to be governed. Denying them this right risks the perpetuation of deep divisions and potential unrest.
2. The Right to Decide One’s Future
Self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, and at its core, it is about allowing people to choose their own future. The pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east have expressed through votes, protests, and even armed conflict that they do not want to live under a government that pursues closer ties with the West. They have sought to assert their right to govern themselves according to their values and interests, which differ significantly from those of the pro-Western government in Kyiv.
By choosing to use force to suppress these movements, the Ukrainian government denies these people their basic rights. The right to self-determination recognizes that people, especially those in politically and culturally distinct regions, are best positioned to make decisions about their governance. A lasting solution to the conflict requires respecting the will of these people, whether that leads to greater autonomy, federalization, or full independence.
3. The Futility of Forcibly Maintaining Territorial Integrity
The Ukrainian government’s insistence on preserving territorial integrity through military force has led to significant suffering, displacement, and loss of life. The war has not only failed to resolve the underlying political disagreements but has entrenched the divide between pro-Russian and pro-Western Ukrainians. The more the government enforces control over the eastern regions, the more resistant these areas become.
History has shown that trying to force unity in a nation deeply divided over political and cultural issues rarely results in lasting peace. Much like the cases of East and West Germany or North and South Korea, where the populations had fundamentally different political orientations, a forced reunification often leads to ongoing strife. The Ukrainian government’s approach of prioritizing territorial integrity over the desires of the people in the east risks deepening the rift and prolonging the conflict.
4. A Global Precedent for Self-Determination
The principle of self-determination is not a fringe idea but is enshrined in international law. The United Nations Charter and various international treaties affirm that all people have the right to determine their political status and pursue their own development. In cases where people are clearly divided over their political future, international law supports their right to self-determination, whether that results in autonomy or full independence.
In the case of Ukraine, the continued insistence on territorial integrity without considering the will of the people undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. If the pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east are allowed to determine their future, it would set a precedent for resolving conflicts based on the principle of self-determination, rather than through violent suppression or imposition of an artificial unity.
5. Lessons from History
There are numerous examples of countries that have peacefully resolved internal divisions through self-determination. Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 after years of political tension. Both countries chose to separate not out of animosity but because they recognized that they could be more prosperous and peaceful as independent nations. This example illustrates that self-determination can lead to peaceful solutions to political divisions, rather than conflict.
Similarly, the reunification of East and West Germany was possible only because the people of East Germany had the opportunity to choose their own future, and they opted to reunite with the West. The key lesson here is that peace is not necessarily achieved by maintaining artificial borders but by respecting the political choices of people and allowing them to determine their own future.
Conclusion: A Peaceful Solution Through Self-Determination
The conflict in Ukraine, which pits pro-Russian and pro-Western Ukrainians against each other, cannot be resolved through force or the rigid preservation of territorial integrity. The ongoing violence is a direct result of denying the people in the east their right to self-determination. Rather than perpetuating the war by insisting on an undivided Ukraine, the government and the international community should prioritize the will of the people, respecting their right to choose their political path.
Territorial integrity is important, but it should not take precedence over the right of people to determine their future. Whether through autonomy, federalization, or independence, respecting self-determination in Ukraine may be the key to a lasting peace and a more just resolution to the conflict.
In the end, self-determination offers the possibility of a peaceful future, while territorial integrity alone risks prolonging division and conflict.