The split in Rome: how to talk about Ukraine's problems without losing the support of partners

Ukrainian public figures, entrepreneurs, politicians and researchers who came to Rome for a conference on Ukraine's recovery demonstrate two different positions, with a deep split between them.

Some believe that we need to speak frankly with the West (governments, international organizations, investors, etc.) about our problems and the failures of reforms, because this is the only way to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to solve these problems and implement these reforms – they are not able to hear the public, so let them hear their Western partners. And without solving these glaring problems, it is impossible to achieve victory .

Therefore, we need to speak frankly about corruption, failures with the rule of law, illegal pressure on business, etc. In essence, these people are asking international partners to put pressure on the Ukrainian government and not to give it money unless decisive and, importantly, long-promised steps are taken in these areas.

Others believe that we must first ensure that Ukraine receives the necessary amount of money, otherwise Ukraine will simply collapse. And any talk of corruption and unfulfilled promises will definitely lead to a reduction in aid, and will strengthen the position of our enemies against our sympathizers in the Western and international establishment, and will also give fodder to Russian propaganda. If the economy and the frontline fail, everything will be in vain.

The former accuse the latter (more often tacitly, but also publicly) of serving the government, perhaps even with their own interests at heart. The latter accuse the former of neglecting the public interest, of their own ambitions, and of a tendency to talk instead of doing. Both sides accuse each other of living in an illusory world and not wanting to face the truth.

Obviously, many of those in Rome are trying to take the middle path. To ask for money and to talk about problems. They want their partners to help Ukraine solve its problems by putting pressure on the authorities, but not too much pressure, otherwise we will collapse; and they want the money to be given in full. Theoretically, this is a possible strategy of behavior, but in practice it depends on personal talents to convey two contradictory ideas to the interlocutors at the same time and convince them that they are well combined. The interlocutors are also not idiots, they have experience, are well informed and understand everything. A kind of diplomatic schizophrenia session.

And this is just one example of the great dilemma of "speaking or not speaking".

A similar debate has unfolded over whether the Ukrainian government can be criticized for failures in mobilization. One side says that it is not allowed to criticize, because such criticism disrupts mobilization, completely demotivates society, feeds Russian propaganda, and threatens the existence of the country. The other side says that it is necessary to criticize, because everything has already been disrupted, and if we do not start fixing it immediately, it threatens the existence of the country; and you can only start fixing problems when you shout about them loudly, because otherwise they will be ignored. Some say: shut up, because you are playing into the hands of the enemy. Others say that to remain silent is to play into the hands of the enemy .

There are many such hot topics. A popular example is local government. By talking about corruption in local government, you help the central government to finally eliminate local leaders, concentrate all power and all corruption in their hands, and lead the country to defeat. By keeping silent about corruption in local government, you are directly protecting corrupt officials and helping them lead the country to defeat .

The fundamental basis that gave rise to all these disputes is obviously that in a normal country, in a normal period of time, the government either does the necessary things or loses the elections. If war and elections are not possible, and the government refuses to solve problems, we have a vicious circle, a clinch. We are a democratic society with an autocratic government that cannot be changed – such a chimera is unsustainable.

Can we solve this dilemma?

Here, everyone has to choose their own path. For example, many people believe that in times of war, there should be an essentially authoritarian system of governance, otherwise they will not survive. Each issue is taken care of by the relevant officials. Other people from outside cannot influence this. If the people in charge need someone's opinion, they will ask. If they don't, go about your business, because otherwise you're just doing harm. Democracy, feedback, civil society – all of this should be on pause in times of war. (This is not a caricature, but a quote from yesterday's discussion about the problems of mobilization.)

Fortunately, this is not the case in our country. We have survived because we are a democracy of free citizens, not an authoritarianism of silent subjects. Because all changes are made solely by those who do it themselves when they are not asked, and terrorize those in charge who do not ask, do not want to, and brush it off.

We have survived thanks to everything that is the opposite of authoritarianism: horizontal connections, breaking hierarchies and charters, decentralized rapid innovation and free economic actors, open discussion of problems, decentralization and local self-government, multi-level people's diplomacy, etc. If everything was done "as it should be," the line of contact could already be along the Zbruch.

If a large authoritarian country was confronted by a small authoritarian country, what would be the hope for victory?

The hope for victory lies in the opposite – in preserving and multiplying democracy, horizontality, innovation, decentralization, and everything that is the antithesis of authoritarianism. This is the only way to overcome a much larger and more powerful force. David could not have defeated Goliath in a sword fight.

So my choice stems not even from values, but from a pragmatic understanding of the source of our strength. Do not be silent, speak up. Raise issues that are not asked of you. Do what you need to do and can do, even when officials are against it. Openly discuss the problems of mobilization, corruption, governance, etc. Talk frankly with Western partners about how to put pressure together to solve problems. Do not tolerate authoritarianism at any point.

This is the only way to win.

Original