In 2004, the journal Yi published Yevhen Zherebetsky’s article “The End of an Empire” in which he predicted the fall of the Russian Federation as the final stage in the collapse of the Russian empire. This article caused varying public responses, including quite a few explicitly negative ones. Six years later, his forecasts seem valid in terms of geopolitical realities, and in line with the opinions of Russian and American expert, though some Ukrainians believe his thesis to be too radical. Someone has made a clever observation, to the effect that a radical is a person who not only knows the answers to all questions, but is also working on further questions. I met with Yevhen Zherebetsky, an expert on international security, at the Ostroh Academy during the roundtable “Ukraine: Prognosis, Diagnosis, Therapy” attended by experts from Ostroh and Kyiv. His report concerned changes in global geopolitics. He made it clear that Ukraine’s national strategy had been hopelessly lagging behind the world’s innovative geopolitical trends over the past decade. As a result, Ukraine’s foreign policy is unable to meet international challenges. More on this in the following interview with Yevhen ZHEREBETSKY.
In your article “The End of an Empire,” carried by the journal Yi in 2004, you referred to Randall Collins’ theory, which foretold the fall of the Soviet Union. You wrote that the Russian empire has gone through two of the three possible breakdown phases, and that the trend is still there. Have you changed you opinion since?
“Randall Collins was a macrosociologist. He specialized in conflict theory. He wrote a book in the early 1970s, in which he claimed that, given certain circumstances, any body politic will inevitably collapse. Collins’ geopolitical dynamics theory isn’t a doctrine; there are no constructive political guidelines, like those you find in Zbigniew Brzezinski or Karl Haushofer’s works. His theory doesn’t provoke any action; it describes and predicts events in a given country, under given circumstances. Eleven years prior to the Soviet Union’s collapse, Dr. Collins described, in an article, the way the Russian empire would disintegrate. I can only apply his technique in regard to present-day Russia, using the latest statistics and foreign policy situation. All this data shows that the factors that felled the Soviet Union are still there, including the fatal manner of state administration, the mind-boggling territory with its horrible weather conditions, the disastrous decline in terms of population, what with the dramatic growth of Russia’s neighboring countries, particularly China. Regrettably, what’s happening north of Ukraine offers no reasons for optimism. It is necessary to realize that Russia’s possible collapse will pose a direct threat to Ukraine. Today’s Russia is a more or less reliable buffer against Muslim — and, possibly, Chinese — expansion.
“But then there was the war between Russia and Georgia that changed the world order. Today, US geopolitician’s allegations that Russia’s ‘Evil Empire’ poses the biggest threat to the international community appear to be running dry. Until recently, US global politics were rooted in the ideas of Sir Halford John Mackinder, a British geographer, one of the most celebrated imperial geopoliticians. He said that Britain should make every effort to prevent a Eurasian Russian-German alliance because it would inevitably put an end to the world’s Anglo-Saxon dominance; that to prevent this alliance, several independent buffer states had to be created to deter the formation of the Berlin-Moscow Axis. Precisely this was done after the World War I. The process was completed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Let me stress that US politicians had always attached a great deal of importance to the countries situated between the Baltic and the Black Sea; they had regarded them as important buffer states that would help maintain US national security.
“After the USSR’s collapse the Russian empire had lost one-third of its territory, one half of its population. Followed a quick degradation of the armed forces. Russia has practically lost its Navy, along with the strategically important ice-free seaports. The way Russia is today poses no threat to the US or Europe, only perhaps to neighboring countries. Proceeding from this assumption, US geostragetists appear to have decided to waste no money enhancing the Baltic-Black-Sea curve. What for, considering that any German-Russian alliance would pose no threat to the United States? Moreover, Russia was mismanaged and corrupt, so much so it needed help — mostly against invasion from the Orient.
“Russia was previously tagged as the Evil Empire, now this tag is deservedly borne by [the People’s Republic of] China. By the way, The Wall Street Journal carried an article equivocally entitled “China Joins the Axis of Evil” [Dec. 7, 2010].”
Do we need this US global dominance?
“We need a ‘cop’ now that the irresponsibility of the world’s political leaders has reached such a degree. After the fall of the USSR, the whole world could trust America as the only one remaining superpower to keep it in one piece. Anyway, having a bad cop is better than having none.”
Following your logic, China is now one of the biggest threats to Russia, yet Russia appears to be collaborating with China in many ways, as with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRIC, and gas supplies. What do you think Russia has in mind while stepping up cooperation with China?
“Now that’s a paradox. I’m trying to figure it out. The thing is that no one knows what kind of strategy the Kremlin leadership will choose in regard to China. What is happening in the relations between Russia and China is tactical, of course. The Chinese are well aware of the fact. My impression is that Russia is turning to face Europe. On the one hand, there is close collaboration with Germany and France, the way it used to be, yet a new level is being reached. A revised approach to Poland is another way to curry favor with Europe. Why? Because today’s Russian experts and intellectuals are dramatically aware of China’s imminent advance; that without help Russia will simply crumble. Considering the rate at which people are leaving Russia, the uncontrollable migration from Siberia and the Far East to Russia’s European regions, the vast territories east of the Urals will be an easy prey to the Russian Federation’s eastern neighbors.
“Another serious problem Russia faces is the Muslim movement in the North Caucasus and other Muslim republics of the Russian Federation. In 2012, after the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, a great many men will find themselves jobless — men who are skilled at only one job: killing fellow humans. Some of them, citizens of Russia, people born in the Caucasus, Tatarstan, or Tuva will end up in Central Asia, in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan — all of them being totalitarian regimes — and will be hired as bodyguards. These regimes are short-lived, of course, aside from Kazakhstan, a rather strong regime. Be that as it may, Russia will have to meddle in its neighboring countries’ local civil wars. Otherwise — should Russia’s Central Asian neighbors fall — the whole terrorist Muslim world would be after Russia. Any degree of instability in the south of Russia will boost migration from Siberia to the European part of this country. Then the Middle Kingdom [i.e., China] will have a fair chance of taking possession of these territories. Given the current alignment of [political] forces, China isn’t likely to attack Russia, but there is nothing to prevent the Chinese from entering the territories vacated by the Russians beyond the Urals. In fact, any kind of warfare by China could be discussed only theoretically.”
One of the topics on the agenda of the forum held in Kyiv last fall by Arsenii Yatseniuk’s Open Ukraine Charitable Foundation had to do with NATO-Russia relations — in terms of collaboration, in view of changes to the world’s security strategy.
“NATO has long been flirting with Russia, and this is one of the reasons behind Ukraine’s failure to gain NATO membership. At present, the United States shows no interest in Ukraine, for the reasons mentioned above. Europe has never displayed a sentimental attitude toward Ukraine. In fact, Berlin and Paris have been aware that, without Ukraine, today’s Russia isn’t likely to hold out for long. China is interested in territory and natural resources. Russia has vast territories and needs manpower to manage and protect them. That was precisely why Europe and the US hurled Ukraine into the cesspool of Putin’s Russia, just to keep Russia ticking. They know that, without aid from abroad, China will get what it wants most — territory and resources — beyond the Urals.”
Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksandr Chaly commented on the Kyiv security forum, noting that Russia and NATO need historical reconciliation, and that without it there will be no mutual confidence. He believes that Ukraine is the key to this reconciliation. Do you agree? What role do you think Ukraine will play on the international arena? How should it form its geopolitical policy?
“This is perhaps one of the most difficult issues to cope with. Europe wants no acts of violence at its borders. At the same time, it takes a manifestly cynical stand: for the sake of its security, Europe doesn’t want a turf war — whichever the way Russia will supply gas there. Back in 2004, we could kiss the empire goodbye, but Viktor Yushchenko turned out to be talentless, twiddling his thumbs; Yulia Tymoshenko proved to be disloyal, and Russia’s clandestine agencies showed tough, skillful performance. We lost our chance then, so we have to work hard to improve the situation now. Ukraine appears to be prepared to end up in Russia’s embrace — and Europe will not mind! The cynical bureaucrats in Brussels say ‘why not?’, considering that the Ukrainians put up with their situation, their government, their lawlessness. Why should the European Union bother itself? Poland is the only country that keeps consistently defending Ukrainian national independence. The Poles know that they will be next [if worse comes to worst]. As it is, Europe is prepared and willing to help Russia combat Muslim and Chinese expansion, because Europe is scared stiff of the possibility of chaos in a huge country with a hundred nuclear launch sites. And so Europe will keep helping Russia, even if it means the death of the last surviving ethnic Ukrainian.”
How do you think Ukraine should build its relations with Russia in these circumstances?
“We stood a chance of building our relations with Russia on an equal footing, but the process was blocked by the absolute ignorance of our top political leadership, with neither Yushchenko, nor Tymoshenko being aware of its importance, simply because they were too busy with their feud. At the time, Ukraine stood a chance of becoming a historic entity. At present, Ukraine is subject to Russia’s political manipulations. However, the fact remains that heading in Russia’s direction means ending up in no man’s land. This would mean the loss of Ukrainian statehood, loss of Ukrainian ethnos. Russia is making every effort to annihilate the Ukrainian national identity. On the other hand, due to the reasons stated above, Putin’s Russia stands a very slim chance of survival, in view of the forthcoming global cataclysms. Russia’s next political turn is anyone’s guess. Russia is flirting with China, selling arms, starting an energy project in the West (Putin’s initiative). All this boils down to the following conclusion: Russia’s political leadership hasn’t decided on what course to adopt. Should Russia ask the US for help, this would mean US military bases being deployed somewhere in Siberia. Another option is an alliance between Russia and China, with all its consequences. There is a historical precedent, when Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, along with the other Muscovite princes, succumbed to the Golden Horde [in fact Yuri Dolgoruky died five years before the birth of Gengis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire. – Ed.]. Why not follow suit and succumb to China, considering this is the sole option? Actually, that’s why Europe is flirting with Russia; no one knows which course of action this country will take.”
Does Russia stand a chance of becoming a democratic country?
“Russia has never been democratic and I think it won’t become a democratic country in the nearest future. Chronicles and memoirs written by foreigners who ventured into Russia offer firsthand experience of a slavish, downtrodden populace, people for whom acts of violence were daily practice. One must also bear in mind Russia’s extremely diversified weather conditions, huge territory, with 80 percent [written off as being] practically uninhabitable. This is another tool Russia’s authorities are using to keep their [ethnic communities] under control. On the other hand, Ukraine would be happy to have a democratic neighbor (considering that all of us have a fluent command of Russian, and the fact that so many Ukrainians use it on a daily basis), so long as it doesn’t interfere with our daily lives. Over the past 300-400 years, Russia’s politics have testified to the exact opposite, to the naivety of my humble aspirations. I have to admit that, for the past twenty years Russia’s foreign po-licy has focused on [what is best described as] special forces operations.
“In order to effectively combat this policy, one must think and make adequate decisions, bearing in mind the circumstances, remembering that Putin’s Russia poses a major threat to Ukraine, and that a China-controlled Russia would be a catastrophe.”
