Peace and democracy are not a given, but a result of political action. This is a lesson from Ukraine to the world.

A review of Remembrance, History, and Justice: Coming to terms with traumatic pasts in democratic societies. Editors: Vladimir Tismaneanu and Bogdan C. Iacob. Publisher: Central European University Press, Budapest, 2016.

On November 5th 2020, Hacim Thaçi, President of Kosovo, publicly announced his resignation and flew to The Hague to face trial. Thaçi is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity dating from his time as a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) commander in the 1990s, crimes that he vehemently denies. He was accompanied by other prominent Kosovan politicians from both the governing and opposition parties in the indictment. This is the most dramatic incident amongst a series of high-profile indictments against Kosovo’s leadership since the country’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1999.

What is the destiny of Ukraine’s post-conflict society? This question belongs to the realm of Transitional Justice and is one of the main challenges for the newly elected parliament.

There is no clear post-conflict strategy for Donbas. This is to a significant extent caused by the hybridness of the conflict which effectively prevents the fundamental goal of peace. If peace were to be achieved, however, experience from the field of transitional justice could point to some ways post-conflict justice might progress in Ukraine.

Much has been written about the Donbas conflict since it evolved into a full-fledged war in the summer of 2014. One aspect of the conflict which has been given almost no attention, despite its obvious importance for Ukraine’s long-term development, are reflections on its aftermath. The debate in the West has predominantly focused on highly pragmatic and technical questions like how to stop the violence and move the conflict into the political realm. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are stuck in a black-and-white characterisation of “treason vs victory” in terms of virtually all aspects of the conflict. In the background of both approaches, there seems to be an assumption that the conflict can be resolved rather easily and the situation will return to what existed prior.

This assumption is misguided. Any stable and long-lasting resolution of the conflict should be accepted by all interested parties as just. This implies that such a resolution is yet to be found.