Alexander Rahr is quite a knowledgeable German foreign policy expert who specializes in the former Soviet states. As director of the CIS Relations Program at the Foreign Policy Society of Germany, he has repeatedly met well-known politicians of Russia and Ukraine. He was the first Western analyst to write a book on Vladimir Putin (A German in the Kremlin). Following this, the German expert twice met the Russian president. In the post-Soviet space, Mr. Rahr is sometimes called the European Brzezinski. He takes an optimistic and approving view of the changes that have occurred in world politics since September 11. In his opinion, both Russia and the West will benefit from their rapprochement, though the latter arouses jealousy in European capitals. He believes Ukraine has made a timely and logical decision to launch the process of NATO membership but cautions, however, that the West knows only too well that the obstacles to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration are to be found mainly inside this country.
“Were you surprised by Ukraine’s decision to launch a process culminating in NATO membership?”
“No, Yevhen Marchuk’s declaration was no surprise to me. Ukraine has been pursuing a pro-Western policy, and it was known that Ukraine strove to join, sooner or later, not only the European Union but also NATO. This has been mentioned both in the corridors of power and on the highest level. A country like Ukraine does not want and even to some extent fears to be separated from the important processes of European security. The NSDC declaration was made at the right moment. The time was chosen very well so as to avert a negative reaction from Moscow. Ukraine made this decision because it was aware that it could further lag behind on the way to integration with the West. I think the Ukrainian elite was appalled by the pace Russia set in cooperation with the US. Likewise, the EU could not expect such a rapid rapprochement between Moscow and Washington. Against this background, Kyiv had to signal the West.”
“Moscow still opposes the expansion of NATO. To what extent do you think it is possible that Russia will pursue the policy of covertly sabotaging the Euro-Atlantic processes in Ukraine, for example, by way of economic pressure?”
“I don’t think this will happen. All the phrases that Russia is against NATO enlargement are sheer rhetoric. This is a given because Russian society is unprepared for too rapid an expansion of the alliance. This is really unpleasant and humiliating for Russia, the more so that NATO has never invited it. But, agreeing to work in the Twenty format, Moscow itself took a step toward rapprochement with NATO. I just see no reason why Russia should destroy Ukraine’s policy by means of some covert actions. Conversely, the Ukrainian political scene has certain elements that play on anti-Western or anti-Russian sentiments. The world has changed too fast for them too. Yet, the Ukrainian leadership coordinates its policies with Moscow as never before, resorting to various diplomatic channels: there are frequent meetings between Putin and Kuchma, national security council secretaries, ministers of defense, etc. I think that for the first time there is no confrontation of interests between the two countries. Russia cannot forbid Ukraine to join organizations it wants to itself.”
“One thing that confirms this is perhaps the statement of Kuchma, Putin, and Schroeder on the supply of Russian gas to EU countries across the territory of Ukraine.”
“Gerhard Schroeder has taken on the role of a politician who encourages an energy alliance with Russia contrary to the wishes of many European countries fearful of dependence on Russian gas. Only Germany and Italy are interested in energy cooperation with Moscow. The Americans had also been against this kind of relationship. But when George Bush offered Putin an energy alliance for transporting gas through the northern ports, Schroeder, as a far-seeing politician, had no alternative but to take a step in return. Ukraine had until now avoid these processes, for the pipe was to have run across Belarus and Poland. Now it has been decided to update the old route. In a sense, this is a victory for Ukrainian diplomacy, which has managed to save this country from being left out of European energy plans.”
“It is claimed in Ukraine that the new parliament is the most pro- Western compared to previous ones. Thus Ukraine’s legislative body is supposed to pass more easily the documents related to rapprochement with the West. Does the EU also think so?”
“I do not think the majority of Verkhovna Rada will vote today for Ukraine’s membership in NATO. After all, voting in the Ukrainian parliament reflects, by and large, the pattern of public opinion. And most Ukrainian citizens oppose rapprochement with NATO, as do their Russian counterparts. But this does not mean this kind of rapprochement is not needed. The problem is that politicians themselves are not fully aware of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is. NATO is a political, rather than military, organization that serves as a cementing factor in Europe not as an aggressive bloc.”
“Do you agree that Ukraine’s foreign policy has lately suffered a defeat, the departure of Uzbekistan from GUUAM?”
“It was quite obvious that Ukraine had begun to lose ground in GUUAM. At the very outset, Ukraine was supposed to play the main role in the new organization. As time passed, the pivotal role gradually shifted to Uzbekistan because the organizational center of gravity was displaced to Central Asia. The US is interested in establishing facilities of its own in that region. The departure of Uzbekistan from the organization might mean that there is certain understanding with America about a different version of a security system in Central Asia. Maybe America decided to put greater stress on bilateral relations with Uzbekistan. Maybe the Uzbek decision means that GUUAM has reached a certain new level of development. Clearly, Uzbekistan will be unable to act in this region in isolation from other members of the organization, Georgia and Azerbaijan.”
“What does Germany think is hindering Ukraine’s march toward its Euro-Atlantic goal?”
“The Soviet past, the rejection of Western values, excessive potential hostility toward Russia, and polarization in Ukrainian society itself. On the other hand, the European Union might pursue a more open policy toward Ukraine and, if making any fair deals, stick to these agreements and keep the door open, not closed for Ukraine. The European mentality should be aimed at unity, not segregation or division. The Ukrainians should also understand the essence of new Europe. A unique historical situation is arising in Europe. It is no longer Germany, Britain, or France that shape the continent’s destiny: a new center of power is really emerging, which will eventually bring the Europeans closer to the establishment of a United States of Europe, where all nations will be equal but sovereign rights will be at a certain new level. Yet, it should be noted that the current center of European power exists in the rather ugly form of the Brussels bureaucracy. If Ukraine wants to enter the very complex processes of building a new Europe, it must make serious efforts. Ukraine must form a lobby of its own to fit in with European policies. The Slavic countries can make a great contribution to the common Europe, which will eventually lead to the United States of Europe of which Mitterand and de Gaulle dreamed.”
