“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the biggest military confrontation since World War II and is extremely dangerous because relations between the nuclear powers have strained,” Denko Maleski, a professor and first foreign minister in independent Macedonia, told Truthmeter. According to him, the disinformation related to this invasion should be countered with good, solid information that explains the causes of the conflict and those elements of the conflict that are unacceptable
Under the syndicating agreement between Truthmeter.mk and Meta.mk, we republish the interview below:
What are your views of the current crisis and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How do you think the situation will develop? Are we one step closer to World War III or will diplomacy prevail?
I follow the situation with great concern. This is the largest military confrontation since World War II and is extremely dangerous, as the interests of the nuclear powers have come very close to confrontation. Never in history, except in the brief moment of the Cuban crisis, have we found ourselves in such a dangerous situation. I hope that there is no instinct for suicide among the great powers to start exchanging missiles and destroy civilization. I hope that this balance of fear still exists and that no one is crazy enough to start pushing such buttons. This will mean that a peaceful solution will have to be sought, a peaceful way out of this crisis. Much will depend on how things turn out on the battlefield, whether Russia succeeds in its intention to occupy Ukraine or, as we see these days, the resistance of the Ukrainians, together with the support of arms by the West, will lead to some sort of pat-position or to end of the Russian invasion. The negotiations will depend on the situation on the battlefield.
What does Russia, led by Putin, want to achieve as an end goal?
Russia opposes NATO enlargement to its borders. It is a great power that at the end of the eighties, when the Berlin Wall fell, withdrew from all of Eastern Europe, i.e. from all the countries that were members of the Warsaw Pact. Russia then decided to get rid of those colonies that were occupied during World War II, when Russian troops pushed Hitler and marched to Berlin. The hope was that Russia would begin to develop as part of the world, and possibly even as a democracy. Then debates erupted over Eastern Europe – where those countries would go, whether to stay out of alliances or join NATO. There was a great debate then about the future of Eastern Europe. There were people, the so-called American realists, who said that it was better for American power to withdraw back to America since there was no reason for NATO to exist because the reason for NATO’s existence was the Warsaw Pact. And now they emerge with their theses that if it had not been done then, this now would not have happened. However, it is a fact that the countries of Eastern Europe asked for a guarantee, they were persistent in becoming members of NATO. Eventually, the logic of power prevailed in America, bringing NATO closer to Russia’s borders. Russia, while weak, economically and politically, had no way of resisting this. Even then, however, Kissinger warned that at some point Russia would begin to expand its power beyond its borders. That’s roughly what happened. Russia rose under Putin, began to prosper as a state, and rebuilt its army. His opponents also admit that in the first ten years of his rule he did valuable things for the country, bringing it in order, but in a Russian way, as a former member of the KGB and surrounded by such people. After those ten years, Putin became a dictator and now, it is he who has the decision for war or peace.
We are witnessing the spread of a lot of disinformation related to the current situation in Ukraine. How do they fit into the whole context?
Each side is now trying to justify its position by blocking the other side’s information. What I have learned in this modern age of the internet is that information that arrives daily is both good and bad. It takes informed citizens, educated people, who know at least the important elements of international politics, to be able to explain their information, whether it is true or false. But it is a difficult job. Disinformation should be matched by good, solid information that explains the causes of the conflict and those elements of the conflict that are unacceptable. I see in Macedonia some pro-Russian sentiment, an anti-American sentiment that is a product of some of our domestic situations. They form the image in people’s heads. When they read some information, people select the information, take what suits them, as a state of mind and accept it, and put aside what they do not like and do not take into account. Those things are overcome with enlightenment, with education. Our politicians should be like this so that the citizens can recognize what is good and what is bad, what is true and what is false on the international stage.
Are hybrid attacks and threats new types of wars in modern society?
Absolutely. At the time I was growing up and living during the Cold War era, the main task of the opponents was to eliminate information from the other side. As the Berlin Wall fell, so did the information wall with the emergence of the Internet. Now it can be used again as a weapon, as something that helps people become informed on the one hand, but also as a weapon to incite hostility, on the other.
Part of the public opinion polls show that 45 percent of Macedonians would support the Russian-led Eurasian Union? What are the reasons for such attitudes of the Macedonian citizens?
That’s hard to explain. We have a common political tradition with Russia, and that is an autocratic tradition. Looking back, neither Russia nor we have had a single day of democracy in our political past. This makes us people who are fascinated by a firm hand. Those percentages of citizens see democracy as an accident, seeing how political parties behave, seeing how much corruption there is, and seeing all the unpleasant things in society. They blame democracy for that and think that a strong hand like Putin’s hand could bring order here as well. They are not at all aware of the dangers of such a strong hand, the dangers to human freedom, but that is what impresses them. I think the main problem is in the wrong view of the source of our problems and the belief that an autocratic system is more efficient, more just – that is completely wrong. Part of the dissatisfaction comes from the West’s treatment of us and that again is a big misunderstanding. I can tell you, as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs, that Macedonia, with the strong support of the United States and the European Union, peacefully achieved its independence and performed a miracle in the chaos of the Balkan wars in Yugoslavia. It does not seem to be best understood, but the memory is of the changes in the political system, the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which had to change the arrangement inside Macedonia to achieve an interethnic balance that will enable peace in the country. The same is the fact that we, as a newcomer to the Balkans, had to adapt to the positions already taken by our neighbors. That pressure to adapt, to survive as a state, is also seen as a product of pressure from the United States and fosters that anti-American, anti-Western influence. Finally, there is the problem of starting negotiations with the EU, which causes public dissatisfaction, because we cannot persistently understand that this is the way the union works, i.e. it primarily protects the interests of its members. Therefore, each member has the right to veto and without the consent of all, enlargement is not possible.
