Are Ukrainian politicians, both in power and opposition, aware of what is going on in the world? Is the current government right to expect Russia to help it? Under what conditions can a “revolution by the majority for the majority” occur in this country? The Day has discussed this with Yevhen KAMINSKY, a department head at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations.
“I would like to begin with what I liked the most in the interview of Andre Glucksmann to the newspaper Die Welt – the phrase that true intellectuals should say what others, including the government, do not know.
“The world is changing, but not exactly the way it may seem to many. Many allege that all the countries that own energy resources today, as well as such states as China and India, are becoming geopolitical leaders. Take Russia, for example: as a result of a longtime, centuries-old, expansionist policy, it is a state with a clearly backward economy, although it has a lot of money thanks to its vast natural resources. But an economy like this – at such a wide expanse – cannot possibly be a foundation that will turn Russia into a true geopolitical leader. In my view, the West, as well as our government, is unaware of this today. We exaggerate the importance of Russia as a geopolitical factor when we accordingly react to overtly provocative anti-American statements of Russia’s leaders, which positions Russia as not just the Soviet Union’s successor but a state that has every right to be a geopolitical hegemon, at least in one region. From this angle, I think the greatest mistake is that, against the backdrop of the difficult processes now underway in Europe and the West’s temporary concern over what is going on in their economies, we are underestimating the West and its self-reproducing capability which it has shown more than once.”
Is it then wise for the Ukrainian leadership to pin a hope on Russia?
“I think it is a very short-term consideration. It is not strategic and does not serve our state’s long-term interests, nor does it promote Ukraine’s sovereignty. I am not talking about territorial integrity, for it is very unlikely today that Russia might make Ukraine part of its federation.
In my view, Russia is implementing what our leadership should undoubtedly see: a scenario of the economic swallowing of such states as Ukraine which is now in economic dire straits due to corruption, lack of reforms, and unfair economic practices. So Russia has launched an economic attack. They know only too well that one can seize this opportunity to subordinate our state by peaceful ways and means and make it obey Moscow’s instructions no matter if we are formally a sovereign state or not. As for the new gas deals, these should have been based not on the increased consumption of the gas we buy from Russia but on the introduction of up-to-date energy-saving technologies and gas and oil saving systems, as the West is doing today. In other words, the West is doing what we are turning a blind eye, instead of paying attention, to. They are introducing energy-saving techniques, whereas we are running up debts because we continue to buy more and more gas.”
The current leadership claims that Ukraine is incapable of developing such sectors as aerospace industry and nuclear power without close cooperation with Russia. What will you say to this?
”I also wonder why Russia has not tried to do so before. Moreover, Russia used to suppress the very possibility of Ukraine reviving its aerospace industry and other sectors. Despite all the shortcomings of the previous leadership, it did not allow them to tell us what kind of people our officials and we should be. Just the contrary, this only emphasizes that the Russian leadership views the industries you mentioned as the factor that will help carry out political and geopolitical, rather than economic, projects. Economic projects could have been implemented earlier. But they did not want to do this because they knew this would fetch them no geopolitical gains. I must really stress here that it is today the question of a virtual seizure and subjugation of, rather than investments in, these Ukrainian industries. None of us knows in what way, if at all, we will own our intellectual property – whether or not it will be automatically handed over to Russia. Should national democratic forces come back to power in, say, four years’ time, they will be unable to do anything – only some revolutionary methods may help bring these industries back at Ukraine’s disposal. The trouble is that the government is so far thinking in short-term categories. They lack farsightedness and strategic thinking.”
What do you think the opposition can do now to thwart the scenario of Russia swallowing the Ukrainian economy?
“First of all, there should be new opposition leaders, for those traditionally called leaders have lost public trust. The populace is disillusioned and no longer trusts them. The populace is awaiting new leaders. On their part, the leaders should be ready for self-denial and to work really in the name of their fatherland, their people, and the future. They must go down in history as individuals who have not just saved Ukraine but have brought it to a stage of development which makes it possible to say that it is a sovereign state and, at the same time, a modern state with a modern economy and a modern political system. And this cannot be done unless the leaders regain public trust and are considered really ‘clean,’ uncorrupted. It is very hard to achieve this.”
Did Brussels and Washington adequately react to the latest events in Ukraine after the signing of the Kharkiv agreements – particularly, to the possibility of a Gazprom-Naftohaz merger and other, no less ambitious, integrationist plans in other sectors, including the aerospace industry and nuclear energy?
“I think it is a fatigue effect. The West has concluded that they cannot cope with Ukraine and are unable to help us embrace European democratic values and the values of the Euro-American approach to the building of a market economy. Having seen that this is in fact impossible under the current government, that the current Ukrainian political elites usually say and do entirely different things, and that the current leaders do not heed the grassroots (failure to keep the promises they gave during the 2004 Orange Revolution), they made the following decision: let there be a quasi-normal situation when Ukraine is subordinated to Russia, rather than a perennial political crisis that affects interstate relations and energy supplies to Europe. This is a forced reaction to the steps of the Ukrainian government which has failed to make a European choice and has been unable – in 20 years – to carry out at least one reform that makes NATO or EU membership possible.”
Mr. Kaminsky, does Ukraine need one more revolution – “by the majority in the interests of the majority?”
“I am afraid of the majority because the majority usually thinks in socioeconomic categories, especially in a time of crisis, whereas the authorities think in the categories of self-preservation. The current opposition and its current leaders are unlikely to mobilize the people for any kind of revolution. It is the authorities themselves who can do so by prompting people to take to the streets and thus foment a revolution by taking advantage of the failure to keep the promises given on the eve of the elections. I will remind you that what triggered the 2004 revolutionary events were flagrant violations of Ukrainian citizens’ democratic rights and freedoms. So people took to the streets to secure their rights. Today, the situation is a bit different, so emphasis should be put on the possibility of a social revolution. The latter may be fomented by the authorities if they continue to spurn the interests of small- and medium-scale business, while these two categories form the basis of our society, which especially depends on and is vulnerable to the pressure of the government. Powerful Ukrainian corporations have already secured, to a large extent, protection from governmental influence, but small and medium business have failed to do so. Should the current leadership fail to keep its high social promises, this business may lay the groundwork for such revolutionary changes. And, as usual, the intelligentsia which has suffered quite a painful blow today. But this subject needs a special discussion.”
