Of all the territories that were once part of the Polish state, Ukraine appears to be the only one that had an elite whose political culture remained on a medieval level. In those times, which were so rich in literary plots, the Polish nobility, after curbing the king’s powers, engaged in dividing up property, wove political intrigues, and formed and destroyed short-term alliances.
Focused only on its needs and ambitions, the Polish nobility simply did not notice that three state formations had crept up to its borders, first from the east, and centuries later from the west, which ultimately dismembered the aristocratic democracy and ended the state’s existence for many years. Following in the footsteps of the Polish nobility (with many variations), the Ukrainian political elite continues to offer this society no less thrilling scenarios.
Amidst the arguments of who will be prime minister and for how long, who will be prosecuted, who will have to go to jail, the color of the coalition, and when it will fall apart, the main signal can hardly be heard: in the name of what will this coalition be formed? Will it be able to offer a more or less clear-cut political strategy? Or are we again doomed to situational alliances in order to solve situational tasks? Is this mix of political arrogance and inferiority complex capable of realizing what is happening behind its own fence? As a matter of fact, some very interesting things are happening there.
Although much water has flown under the bridge since the third partition of Poland, the challenges remain the same, as are the goals of former political Gullivers. In early March Russia’s President Putin visited Hungary and the Czech Republic (barely remembered now) where he made a gesture uncharacteristic of Russian politics. He not only recognized Russia’s “moral responsibility” for the Soviet invasion of these countries, but also placed wreaths at monuments dedicated to those who were killed beneath the treads of Soviet tanks. What did these countries do to deserve such a magnanimous gesture from Russia?
At first glance, the whole thing may be an attempt to smooth over the rough edges of the emotional, rash steps that were made during the so-called gas attack in early January. But this is only part of the truth. The passions that arose around the gas attack coincided with the signing of Ukrainian-Russian accords. Putin made his visits precisely at the moment when the European beehive had calmed down somewhat.
Two weeks later the European Union decided to end all talk about its borders and expansion terms, once and for all. On March 15, the European Parliament, the EU’s legislative body, passed a resolution instructing the EU’s executive body, the European Commission, to submit a report on establishing EU borders by the end of the year. As a recommendation, the European Parliament proposes close and multilateral relations with European countries without clear membership prospects. In other words, Brussels has made it clear to Ukraine that is it not included in the European Union’s immediate expansion plans. Is there a connection between these events? Do the Europeans have enough of their own internal problems?
It is likely that Europe is literally interpreting John Paul II’s thesis about Ukraine being a “bridge and a gateway” between civilizations. Be that as it may, we are once again faced with the same situation that we have always faced. On the one hand, there is prosperous but cool Europe, and on the other there is Russia, still hoping to take Ukraine into its tight fraternal embrace. Putin’s unexpected admissions could be regarded as a sign of gratitude for the political stalemate in which Ukraine’s foreign policy strategy has lately bogged down. Whatever the configuration of the future parliamentary coalition, it will have to seek a way out in order to continue playing the geopolitical game. Otherwise, there will be a checkmate.
What little historical experience we have allows one to reach the necessary conclusions. Ever since Ukraine announced its geopolitical debut under Bohdan Khmelnytsky, our country and its society have been torn apart internally and externally. Our history shows that the Western-oriented Cossack officers’ class had the least luck. For the same reason Europe kept making promises, like today, instead of offering some realistic assistance. After signing the Treaty of Andrusovo with Moscow, the Polish Rzeczpospolita was hit by political boomerangs in the form of three partitions. As we can see, the West has not learned anything either.
As for the treaty signed with the Muscovite state, Khmelnytsky’s tragic mistake was his failure to understand who he was dealing with. Whereas he regarded the Treaty of Pereyaslav as an international legal instrument, for Muscovy these papers were nothing more than a license (yarlyk) to rule over Ukraine. It was a tragic misunderstanding of the difference between Law and Tradition. This difference was well understood by some Left-Bank Cossack officers, who began making endless trips to Moscow to obtain this very license.
It is worth recalling Viktor Yanukovych’s visit to Krasnoyarsk, where “in a warm and friendly atmosphere” he presented a mace (the symbol of Ukrainian power) with an engraving of Khmelnytsky to Russia’s Parliamentary Speaker Boris Gryzlov. After receiving a license for the second time, he returned home to calmly focus on economic issues relating to the future Southwestern District.
Unfortunately, Russia’s policy has not changed either. After exploiting an entire arsenal of political bullying, the Kremlin leadership, assisted by the media and economic provocations, is trying to strike the strongest possible blow against the Ukrainian government. Before the presidential elections Ukrainians were constantly being assured that the European mentality is alien to us and that our geopolitical choice is narrow. The press is filled with suggestions that Ukraine and Russia ought to build their relations by following the example of the US and Canada.
These comparisons are totally irrelevant, from the word go. The proposed type of relations is possible only on the basis of a common world view platform. Otherwise, it will be more akin to the medieval version of relations between England and Scotland.
The political forces that are splitting this society with questions, like “With whom should we be friends?” are simply manipulating people’s consciousness. While feeding stories about the hair-raising economic consequences of joining the WTO, EU, and NATO, they are singing the old tune about cheap gas, working factories, and the scraping of shovels on winter ice, forgetting that the world has already marched far ahead.
Old Soviet school atlases on the history of the USSR contained economic charts with arrows indicating the direction and content of commodity exchanges with Europe. For several centuries the arrows indicating exports from Russia to Europe read: “yarn, honey, wax.” Ore, oil, and gas were added later. The reverse arrows read machines and equipment. Apparently little has changed, except that weaponry has been added.
If Ukraine’s future is with these economic and legal dunces, it will be in the direction indicated by those arrows in old Soviet atlases. Those who are fond of making trips to acquire those “licenses” ought to consult some history textbooks or keep a photo of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in their office.
The trouble with Ukraine is that it has long remained in other historical orbits and therefore was always superfluous. However, whereas in the 17th century the pro-Ukrainian path created doubts even in the minds of its exponents, in the early 21st century it has begun to gain increasing numbers of votes and supporters. In order to head this movement and give it a fresh impetus it is necessary only to discard personal ego and return to historical pride.
It is time finally to realize that a pawn, even it becomes a queen, may well be sacrificed. If the architects of the future coalitions do not understand that they are already doomed to play their Ukrainian game, they risk becoming living exhibits of the Pyrohove Ethnographic Museum. In his time, not the most auspicious period for the young French Republic, Pierre Vernier never tired of reminding his rulers that the “the great only appear great because we are on our knees. So let us get up!”
