KYIVAN RUS’ IS, ABOVE ALL, PART OF UKRAINIAN HISTORY
Mr. Smeshko, what is your impression of the website Ukraine Incognita?
“I am a great admirer of the newspaper Den, for I think it is a unique publication in Ukraine. It is a newspaper that strongly believes in the future of our state and is doing its best to bring this optimism across to all nooks and crannies of Ukraine. I have always liked it that the newspaper, first of all, focuses on and digs up the huge layers of our history. We will be unable to build a decent future unless we know history and borrow from it the best basic features of our people. Sometimes, when you switch on any TV channel, you come to think we are living in an absurd world: Ukrainian television propagates disbelief in the very possibility of building the state of Ukraine as well as in the glorious past of our country is spite of some problems of historical growth. For example, I surfed through a splendid website, Ukraine Incognita, with excellent video excursions to our museums, which confirms again that Ukraine is part of European civilization, not only its consumer, but also investor in its creation. It is a little feast for me to make sure that Den is developing and working on the main thing that is needed for our nation’s revival and progress – an insight into the Ukrainian people’s soul.”
Our penultimate book of Den’s Library series, The Power of the Soft Sign, or the Return of Rus’ Truth, is on the history of Kyivan Rus’. By contrast to Russia, Ukraine pays too little attention to this period of our history, although the birth of Ukrainian identity should be sought in that very span of our history. Why do you think it is so?
“No nation can exist without a national idea and strategy as well as the belief that there is something special in the people’s soul and system of values that lays the groundwork for growth and progress. One of our central TV channels is showing a high-budget Turkish film, The Magnificent Century. Roxolana. Based on historical events, it is at the same time a dream film on the present-day Turks’ vision of the 16th-century Ottoman Empire. It is a cult film in Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan. Every viewer is in rapture over the historical events skillfully reconstructed with a major share of psychologism. The film rouses in the viewer a feeling of the grandeur of that-time country and its leaders who looked like the present-day people but were of an extraordinary nature.
“Have we seen in the 20 years of independence at least one film, such as With Fire and Sword or The Deluge, which was a source of optimism and pride for our nation in the hard times? There have been instances of heroism and grandeur of the Ukrainian people in our history, too. But the state still does not care about re-creating – on the basis of the prominent past – the dream of the outstanding future. Take, for example, Hetman Sahaidachny. Do we have to invent anything to add to the heroism of this figure which influenced historical processes on our continent without having a full-fledge state at his disposal?
“Likewise, Kyivan Rus’ also remains unstudied in mainstream films. Even though it used to be the cradle of three Slavic peoples, it is only a subject in the historiography of Russia, our closest neighbor. These historians trace the origin of the Russian Empire back to the Kyivan sources, but they have totally forgotten that the territory of Kyivan Rus’ is modern-day Ukraine and, therefore, it is, first of all, part of Ukrainian history. I see a great danger in that our state proved unable to find the resources that could work for the strategic objective of creating the national idea.”
What is the problem then?
“The problem is about culture and education which must be the cornerstone of our state’s overall development. Even from the economic viewpoint, only educated and cultured people will form the nation’s main productive force and be able to make a product that is in demand all over the world.
“It pains me to see that from 1991 on we quickly ruined what had been the best thing in the previous state: medical care, culture, and education. Although the latter were ideologically limited, it was a high-quality product. As for academic research, history and political science were in the grip of the system, while in all the other respects we were the vanguard of world science.
“We ruined what was to be preserved, without offering anything in lieu. Hence is the current culture of the political elite in Ukraine. After two decades of independence, the voter should read the biography of the prospective leaders before electing anybody. He or she should take into account their educational and cultural level as well as origin. We lost many of the best representatives of our nation in the previous decades – some were killed in wars, some were repressed, and some went abroad in search of a better destiny and even achieved success there. We must re-create our culture and science.”
THE FIRST THING UKRAINE SHOULD BORROW FROM SWITZERLAND IS TOLERANCE
In the early 2000s you worked in Switzerland on a diplomatic mission. Can you draw any comparisons with Ukraine? What do you think Ukraine could take from the Swiss experience?
“I like Switzerland very much. I think we should first of all borrow their tolerance in the attitude to the nation’s ‘composition.’ The people of Switzerland have united three of the European nations that have always been historically antagonistic: the Germans, French, and Italians. I can remember my Swiss acquaintances saying, when they were coming back home from Germany or France, that they had at last come to a civilized country where there is order and the sensation of being protected.
“One of the main secrets of that country is love for work and high culture in everything – be it the industry or recreation. The Swiss are lucky: they have in fact never experienced wars or the presence of foreign troops on their territory – except perhaps a few battalions of Napoleon Bonaparte in the 19th century, which, incidentally, brought along Napoleon’s civil code, added one more, Italian, canton to that country, and established the official status of its Confederation on the international level. History proves that tolerance, diligence, high culture, adherence to traditions, the love of freedom, and human rights protection enabled that country to create a unique European phenomenon called Switzerland.”
What is the difference between Ukraine and Switzerland, for those who defend bilingualism in our country usually point to the experience of that state?
“We must first create Swiss-like political and economic conditions and a historical tradition, and only then compare, and we can choose only the countries, where the titular ethnic group does not have to prove its historical right to exist as a nation and a state. In Switzerland, the historically formed nations that uphold an old state-forming tradition are protectors of the three main official languages – German, French, and Italian. But in Ukraine bilingualism can only halt the development of the Ukrainian language and even cause the state to drop its support for it.”
What can you say about local government?
“Switzerland is built naturally – from bottom to top – rather than artificially – from top to bottom. In other words, it rests on the strongest, grassroots-based, foundation of really functioning local government. Nobody begins to rewrite the constitution once a new president comes to power. The country is structured bottom to top in such a way that real power rests with the cantons (something like our districts, but with more powers to wield). For example, it is the cantons that offer citizenship to individuals. The Confederation’s president only affixes his seal and signature. Deciding whether an individual deserves to be a Swiss citizen, they first of all see if he or she knows the country’s languages and traditions, is industrious and law-abiding, and has a time-tested positive reputation. It is very difficult to acquire Swiss citizenship.
“A few words about Switzerland’s army. The defense doctrine of that country envisages the existence of a well-trained and numerous strategic reserve. Therefore, it never occurs to anybody to dodge the universal military duty. Naturally, nobody is going to use the armed forces for any operations outside the country, but the defense ministry has at its disposal about 5-10 thousand professionals, with dozens of thousands more continuously upgrading their military skills by way of rotation. This involves almost the entire population. As a result, Switzerland has the largest reserve among the European countries.
“On the whole, the state is based on the principle ‘the country for the Swiss’: all efforts are aimed at guaranteeing the safety and prosperity of a citizen no matter whether he or she is Italian, German, or French.”
What can you say about counterintelligence in Switzerland?
“It is one of the best in Europe.”
They have a system of mutual informing. Incidentally, we call it “whistle-blowing.”
“I would say it is the Swiss people’s feeling of personal responsibility for the situation in the state and human rights protection. They are so law-abiding that whenever a Swiss sees something that poses a potential threat to individuals and society, he or she immediately informs the law-enforcement bodies in which they trust fully.
“The democratic rights of Swiss citizens are almost absolute – referendums on certain issues are in fact held every month. For example, when I came there in 2002, there was a big demonstration in front of parliament in Bern. They were farmers who protested against the government’s decision to increase subsidies for agrarian producers. The protesters told me that they needed higher output quotas rather than subsidies as a sop. Our country is still a long way from this, and we are unfortunately not yet prepared for this kind of referendums.”
UKRAINE MADE AN ENORMOUS INVESTMENT IN THE U.S. DEFENSE CAPABILITY
When you were the first military attache in the US in the early 1990s, how did the top military, with which you were in touch, react to Ukraine becoming independent?
“The US was perhaps our closest ally at the time. Still, there were divisions inside the US leadership on this matter. For example, in the late 1980s – the early 1990s the State Department and, to some extent, the Central Intelligence Agency were skeptical about the very possibility of an independent Ukraine. This was also mirrored in US President George Bush Sr.’s speech at our parliament in Kyiv. By contrast, the US Defense Department with Dick Cheney at the head almost immediately gave active support to the idea of Ukraine’s independence. As proof of this, in 1993 Ukraine was the first former Warsaw Pact country to sign a memorandum of understanding and cooperation between the two countries’ defense ministries. There was some envy on the part of not only our north-eastern neighbor which signed a similar document later: even the Poles and Hungarians were somewhat baffled at this show of the Pentagon’s interest in Ukraine. There was active cooperation in the early-to-mid-1990s.
“We can also recall the outward manifestations of this respect for us – for example, the way President Leonid Kravchuk was received at the highest level in the US. When he came to Washington, there was a guard of honor in front of the Pentagon, consisting of representatives of the three branches of service, and a special parade team, wearing the 18th-century uniform, was playing him martial music of the times of independence struggle against Britain. A little later, in 1995, Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk was also received at the Pentagon on an equally high governmental level. As far as I can remember, no other premier has ever been received on this level.”
Was it an “advance payment” to this country?
“Let us be frank: we had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal at the time. All the Ukraine-based missiles were targeted on the United States. So Ukraine made, to some extent, an enormous investment in the US defense capability by eliminating this threat to America. But, on the other hand, we failed to further develop these starting assets and convert them into concrete international agreements aimed at boosting Ukraine’s defense capability. In 1996, during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma, a treaty was signed on strategic partnership between the US and Ukraine – it was the result of our nuclear disarmament. But, unfortunately, we failed to fill this partnership with concrete deeds. We proved unable to seize all the opportunities to convert our former nuclear might into strategic mutually beneficial relations. Very much depended on us: on professionalism in our foreign policy and on the legacy of Ukrainian politicians. Our uncertainty and sometimes incompetence of the national security key players resulted in the squandering of the colossal asset we had had in the early 1990s.”
Did you feel sorry that you, a doctor of engineering, had to leave the academic world?
“I was very happy in the academic world: I was one of the youngest PhDs and post-doctoral engineering researchers – even on the ex-USSR’s scale – in the sphere of guided missiles and high-precision weapons design. It is one of the best things I remember today. But I am very happy that fate gave me an opportunity to work for independent Ukraine in other offices as well. Undoubtedly, scientific research and secret services are entirely different pursuits.”
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE IS, ABOVE ALL, INTELLECT AND A HIGH LEVEL OF COMMON CULTURE AND EDUCATION
Did your technological education come in handy when you were chief of the Defense Ministry’s Main Department for Intelligence in the late 1990s?
“Undoubtedly, it helped me. Intelligence service is, above all, intellect and a high level of common culture and education. As a sergeant in one of my favorite films, The Dawns Are Quiet Here, used to say, ‘War is not about who will outwalk who but about who will outthink who.’ In simpler terms, if an intelligence officer comes into a hostile office room and sees a table strewn with top-secrets maps, only a highly cultured and skilled officer will see, casting a glance, that a small half-torn fax piece in the waste paper basket may be of a higher value for his country than all the classified maps combined. But this requires a very long period of preparatory work, beginning from childhood, parents, and general upbringing.”
Why did you need law education?
“My first education is electronics engineer, which I received in a higher military missile engineering school. The second is a war college, a higher level of strategic military education. The third is the Law School of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University. When I was appointed military intelligence chief, I understood that, when we are building a rule-of-law democratic state, the top intelligence executives must have a juridical education. Without this education, it is easy to cross the line beyond which it is not clear whether it is work for or a channel for influencing your state. For politicians come and go, while the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine must protect the people and the state rather than certain political forces. So I decided to set an example to the officers who were considered as future candidates for topmost executive offices by entering, together with them, the university to gain a legal education.”
Did juridical education help you win the suit against the Prosecutor General? Was there a fact like this in your life story?
“Unfortunately, there was one. You are right – the litigation lasted for two months. I, a private person at the time, had to file a lawsuit against the then Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Sviatoslav Piskun. He took the liberty of casting a shadow on my personal dignity on television and in other media. There were hearings in first- and second-instance courts. The witnesses who testified against me were chief of Prosecutor General Office’s Main Investigative Department, chief of the Prosecutor General Office’s Inner Security Department, and other functionaries of this agency. I had a defense attorney who did not plead. I pleaded my case on my own and attended all the sessions. As a result, both courts ruled that Piskun had lied, and the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine was forced to officially apologize to me.
“Incidentally, I also had, unfortunately, to file a suit against the then President Victor Yushchenko who had unlawfully repealed the decree on awarding me the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine. That was also a lengthy litigation in the courts of two instances. I defended myself again at all the sessions and won the case in both courts. The court ruled that President Yushchenko’s actions had violated the Constitution of Ukraine’s provisions, so my previously canceled diplomatic rank was restored.”
What do you do today?
“I lead a civic organization, Force and Honor, and a non-governmental organization, Center for Strategic Studies and Analysis. Over the past year, I have been working on the formation of Ukraine’s national idea and national strategy in the current conditions. I hope I will succeed with God’s help. If possible, Den readers will be the first readers.”
The Day’s FACT FILE
Ihor Smeshko was born on August 17, 1955, in Khrystynivka, Cherkasy oblast. Education: Kyiv Sergei Kirov Higher Antiaircraft Missile School, Marshal Vasilevsky Land Forces Air Defense Academy, National Defense Academy of Ukraine – master’s degree in State Military Management; part-time studies at Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University – diploma of a lawyer. Doctor of Sciences (Engineering), professor (1992).
January – August 1992: executive secretary of the Expert Research Board at the Ministry of Defense. September 1992 – July 1995: Military Attache of Ukraine in the US. July 1995 – April 1998: chairman of the Intelligence Committee attached to the President of Ukraine. June 1997 – September 2000: chief of the Ukraine Defense Ministry’s Main Directorate of Intelligence. September 2000 – October 2002: Defense Attache, Military Attache at the Ukrainian Embassy in Switzerland. October 2002 – September 2003: chairman of the Military-Technical Cooperation and Export Control Committee under the President of Ukraine. November 2002 – June 2003: Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), June – September 2003: First Deputy Secretary, NSDC. September 2003 – February 2005: chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). In December 2005 he was decommissioned to the SBU reserve in the rank of Colonel-General.
Married, has two sons. Has a fluent command of the English, German, and French languages.
