The Ukrainian leadership has long been criticized for their multivectoral foreign policy (otherwise described as having a variety of vectors). After the last week, the impression is that the key vector has been finally determined. Evidence of this is found in recent events; Verkhovna Rada’s package ratification of the agreements on the Ukrainian-Russian state border, join use of the Kerch Strait, and the formation of SES, along with Premier Viktor Yanukovych interview for Russian media, President Leonid Kuchma and Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn’s meeting with Russian President Putin and Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov in the Crimea.
President Kuchma delivered the first program speech on the subject. First, the deepening of regional cooperation fully conforms to the EU principles, since it is the only way for every country to completely implement its potential and secure its national interests. Thus, the head of state said, Ukraine’s active stand in optimizing relations with Russia is in perfect accord with the declared European course. The president’s second thesis is that Ukraine must not integrate into Europe as a “younger sister.” He stated that further postponing EU membership is explained by the need to extend the period of fundamental systemic transformations.
Premier Yanukovych’s theses, in an interview with Russian journalists, remind one of a campaign publicity stunt. He said that the formation of SES would play a unifying role and enhance Ukraine’s and Russia’s European course, thus bringing their WTO memberships closer. Viktor Yanukovych believes that Ukraine and Russia must wage a joint policy in the oil and gas sector, with regard to Europe.
One can only welcome the idea of a free trade area — if one forgets that SES is something more than FTA. The SES agreement indicates a unification of legislation, coordination of the customs, trade, and currency policies. Statements made by Russian leaders leave no doubt that their main objective is a customs and then currency union. In other words, no independent decision and nonconformity to the constitution. In fact, EU standards also contradict the Ukrainian constitution, envisaging the loss of quite some sovereignty. True, it took decades to build the European Union; its potential and resources are far greater than those of SES and CIS. Also, none of the EU countries seem eager to join SES.
As for SES’s attitude to Ukraine’s thriving economy, no one has presented any estimates with any pertinent evidence. What is obvious is that Ukrainian businesses will find themselves in a complicated situation; they will be unable to compete with products from Russia and Belarus, made using considerably less expensive energy resources. Energy supply costs will not lowered for Ukraine, said Russian Ambassador Viktor Chernomyrdin. There will be losses. A number of Western experts note that Ukraine’s WTO membership ratings were higher than Russia’s, considering the situation in the membership talks at the start of the year. It is not difficult to see the direction Russia-proposed synchronization of WTO membership will take and who will unify the legislation (obviously, not Russia). In other words, those upstairs have made a sacrifice of the European vector, at least for the time being.
The West may welcome this course of events, because they consider unambiguous relationships most important. After all, it is much easier to deal with a de facto single entity, so all problems can be solved at a single capital city.
