The British journalist Edward Lucas, deputy editor of the international section for the weekly newsmagazine The Economist, authored the bestseller with an eloquent (and somewhat provocative) title The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West. The book has already been translated into 20 languages, and its Ukrainian version was brought out by the Kyiv publishers Tempora in August 2009.
The New Cold War can be qualified as yet another persuasive disproof of Francis Fukuyama’s famous thesis about the “end of history.” While we are trying to fully realize and reinterpret everything that happened to us during the past century, History, in its north-west dimension, drinks toasts to Andropov, gratefully commemorates Stalin, and thus prepares new surprises for us. And not only for us Ukrainians, but also for the West. Is the West, together with Ukraine, ready for these surprises, which are unlikely to be pleasant?
During the meeting with Lucas in the Ye bookstore in Kyiv (the British journalist arrived in Ukraine at the invitation from the periodical Ukraiinsky Tyzhden (Ukrainian Week), one remark from a Czech citizen, who had read The New Cold War translated into his mother tongue, was more than significant. This remark (which you will read below) showed that the problem of reconsideration and realization of the Soviet legacy — and, moreover, the responsibility (not only that of the communists, but of the entire generation) — is indeed burning both in Ukraine and where the regime did not have enough time to set in properly. Lucas’ book gives an opportunity to easily see how this process of reconsideration is effectively obstructed by the Kremlin, which is using both old, tried-and-true methods (propaganda, browbeating, saber rattling, and even active hostilities) and the relatively new ones, such as money and business connections.
Meanwhile, Lucas’ The New Cold War makes us remember and take a fresh look at the book The Ukrainian Question by his fellow countryman and colleague, Lancelot Lawton. I will allow myself to remind the readers that back in 1935, speaking before an influential public gathering at the House of Commons, he clearly stated that “the chief problem for the Europe of today is the Ukrainian problem,” and went on to say the following: “The profound interest in this country is caused by its influence on European peace and diplomacy; at the same time, Britain’s vital interests are closely connected with Ukraine. Most people do not understand how deeply this problem runs the roots of all European strife of the first quarter of the century.”
Does this historical-journalistic parallel imply the need for closer relations with Great Britain? Probably, it does. We will redirect this question to diplomats and experts in the world politics. However, let us take a broader look: back then, in 1935, Lawton’s words were not heard or, if they were, they were not estimated properly.
It is here that the West’s somewhat complacent and even awkward treatment of the “Russian question” begins to show, which is still felt today and which is described by Lucas. “In the early 2000s, Europe perceived me as a kind of radical extremist. Both George Bush and Tony Blair were Vladimir Putin’s friends back then. Now, rashly critical discussions on Russia are nothing uncommon in Europe,” said the journalist in his interview to Glavred.
Lucas emphasizes that, while throwing the book at the Kremlin, he is far from taking the responsibility off the West for its criminal inactivity and, at times, even conscious conniving at the Kremlin’s sins. The New Cold War, as a kind of sequel to Lawton’s work, may well be called a prophetical book. In Britain, it came out in the spring of 2008 – just on the eve of the Georgian conflict – as a warning to the West, as the author himself maintained. But the “fuse” did not work again.
Today, “Lucas’ warning” concerns Ukraine first and foremost. Evaluating President Viktor Yushchenko in the above-mentioned interview, the journalist said that “for Russia, Yushchenko was useful in that he had discredited the Western ideas. He abused very distinctive pro-Western rhetoric and turned out a totally incompetent manager.”
We were able to see this for ourselves while following the presidential election campaign.
The British journalism, represented by Lawton and now Lucas, and Ukraine are doubtlessly confederates. “I think, Ukraine’s worst problem is the absence of elites. Now it has the old provincial top bureaucracy, which has survived from the Soviet times. In my opinion, the EU should work more with students and the civil society, in order to build up the new elite,” said Lucas. You have to agree that students and civil society as a potential new elite is a fitting focus for Ukraine.
Alongside Ukraine, the list of Lucas’ confederates might expand to incorporate the Baltic States, Georgia, Belarus, and the entire world. Moreover, it can also include the Russian nation. According to the author, the Kremlin has been depriving the Russians of their history and country. That is why the 20 translations of the book into various foreign languages are of extreme importance. By the way, there is also a translation into Russian published by the Piter publishers last year.
The Kyiv conference in the Ye bookstore, which was opened with a short speech, was marked by that nervous animation which seems to appear only when the “Kremlin” theme is brought up, which is so painful for Ukrainians. Unfortunately, due to the lack of time the British journalist was only able to answer a few questions. So Ukrainians will have to address the rest to themselves.
“Ukraine is the most important nation for Europe’s future,” believes Edward LUCAS. “If Ukraine thrives, we, too, will thrive. If Ukraine is defeated, the same awaits us. Nothing can present a worse challenge to the Cheka regime in Moscow than a great country which used to be a constituent republic in the Soviet Union and which, overcoming enormous difficulties, still managed to rise to its feet and has a powerful economy.
“From all the propaganda spread by the Kremlin’s puppet media it is absolutely obvious that above all they are afraid of success stories in the former Soviet Republics, be it Estonia, Georgia, or, potentially, Ukraine.
“I wrote this book because I was primarily worried by the West’s smug and calm attitude towards what had been going on in the Kremlin and Russia. And my worst criticism is directed at the Kremlin’s accomplices in the West, i.e., the politicians who have business agreements with Russian politicians and are thus damaging the national interests of their own countries.
“I am also worried by the weakness and disconnection of the West and the NATO in particular. The EU’s and NATO’s reaction to the war in Georgia was outrageously weak and futile. But I am most vexed by the stand towards the regime in Russia, taken by people who are supposed to protect the integrity of the western economy.
“Over the past 15 years, money has become the Chekists’ most powerful secret weapon. Today, the Chekists wear expensive designer suits; they have lawyers, attorneys, bankers, and PR managers working in the West. Today they present an even greater threat.
“I have strongly censured the incompetent and corrupt Cheka regime in Moscow, but the most criticism goes to western companies which, in particular, contributed to the destruction of Yukos. Speaking of Yukos, I always emphasize that I am rather critical towards it. In 1998, Khodorkovsky even tried to sue me for libel as I had been speaking of the ‘oil charm,’ owing to which the company was built in the early 1990s.
“It would have been quite sensible of the new Russian government to nationalize this company, along with the other oligarchs’ property which was acquired in dubious ways. And though I, personally, would not have accepted such a decision, something quite different and absolutely intolerable happened in reality: the company was destroyed, and its assets handed over to the Kremlin regime’s closest ‘friends.’
“And the most loathsome thing in all this is that the destruction of the Yukos was assisted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the London Stock Exchange. No wonder, Putin and his closest accomplices are now certain that with their money, they can afford anything.
“I will also note that this is detrimental not only to the world, but to Russia itself. Since 2000, thanks to the increase in oil prices, this regime has received an extra 1.3 trillion dollars. However, I am not at all that pessimistic. In my view, it is obvious that the ‘Chekist regime’ in Russia isn’t working quite well. They have failed to modernize the Russian economy (it is still totally dependent on gas and oil) and build a reliable alliance with at least any other state. Despite all the problems facing the EU today, an array of nations are queuing up to become a member. However, I have not seen a single country eager to follow Russia.”
In his book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski names Ukraine among the six main geopolitical centers of Eurasia. However, he remarks that Ukraine will increase its geopolitical weight only when it has carried out structural reforms and has taken care of its economy. In your opinion, has Ukraine lost its importance in Eastern Europe? Has Poland taken over as a geopolitical center, just as Brzezinski forecast?
“I agree that Poland has augmented its geopolitical weight. Europe is only beginning to arrive at the understanding of the fact that Poland has become a powerful political player. By the way, this is the only economy in Europe that had been growing throughout the past year. Since Radoslaw Sikorski became the minister of foreign affairs, Poland’s international policy has also become more mature, considerate, and efficient.”
“I’m looking forward to 2011, when Hungary and Poland preside in the EU. This period will be very convenient for Ukraine – given that it is able to use the chance – as the president nations are, firstly, your neighbors and, secondly, friends.
“I absolutely agree that over the past 20 years Ukraine has lost innumerable opportunities. However, I also believe in strategic patience. I very well remember all the fears and worries voiced in the early 1990s, to the effect that Ukraine was going to collapse, and that it was incapable of existing as an independent state. Yet today we see that those predictions have not come true. And although the big politics in Ukraine is still a disaster, there are many things here that have already worked.”
In your book, you formulate a thesis about the West being responsible for this state of affairs. What was the feedback from the London Stock Exchange and PricewaterhouseCoopers?
“I would love to say that they felt ashamed and wore sackcloth and ashes, while their CEOs chose to retire – but alas, they are still working just as they used to. I am totally amazed at the western businessmen’s and companies’ ability to take humiliation in huge portions without any indigestion.
“I am also amazed at the fact that the oil companies, constantly humiliated by the Kremlin regime, will always come back for a new helping. Just one example: in his last days of office as prime minister, Tony Blair at last ‘woke up’ and called the western companies to never have any close contacts with the Kremlin. Then Mr. Haywood, head of the British Petroleum, who just happened to be at an economic summit in Saint Petersburg, assured the hosts that they should not take heed of the belated emotions of the former prime minister. And this is the CEO of a company which he was virtually robbed of in Russia! Moreover, robbed twice.”
In your book, you give a fairly substantial covering of what is going on in Russia, but it is also crucial to understand why it is going on. For Ukrainians, this explanation lies on the plane of history. Even the most competent people in the West, having enough information at their disposal, will not know Russia the way we Ukrainians do. For us it is important that the West should hear the Ukrainian view of history as well. Even your highly respectable newsmagazine, The Economist, publishes unacceptable things at times, like the explanation of the origin of the name Ukraine from the word okraina, i.e., “outskirts.”
Besides, if we speak about the connection of Kyivan Rus’ and the Russian state — it is roughly the same as the connection between American Indians and India, or the Great Roman Empire (i.e., Germany) and the antique Rome. It would be good if people in the West read truthful history rather than exclusively Russian interpretations, because they have been sheer propaganda and cheap primitiveness since times immemorial. Reading a true history of Russia would be useful not only for Ukraine, but also for the West.
“What needs to be particularly condemned about that regime is, of course, its distortion of history. For example, they criticize the Estonian and Latvian veterans for their collaboration with the Nazis. Instead, they hush up the fact that, out of all the nations of the former Soviet Union, it was the Russians who actually cooperated with fascists the most.
“They also prefer to stifle the other part of history, beginning from Hertzen to Akhmatova to Mandelshtam and the dissidents of the 20th century. Even the smallest town in Germany has a street named in honor of Willi Brandt, while his counterparts and supporters in Russia are completely forgotten. The Russian authorities do not remember the heroes who opposed the Soviet tank intervention in Czechoslovakia. Instead, they are busy whitewashing Stalin’s image and justifying the Nazi-Soviet Pact. We must not let the Kremlin steal Russian history!”
Just how reasonable is it for Ukraine to look for a new coalition now? At present, Europe’s path is complicated, while Russia’s fatal. Maybe it would be more sensible to create a new international union which would incorporate, say, Turkey and Iran?
“I don’t think any other advantageous alliance can emerge, save for that with the EU. The US tried to support the idea of GUAM, but it eventually didn’t work out. I emphasize that the Ukrainian success on the international political arena is impossible without an internal political order. Until Ukraine becomes a country with a powerful economy and a well-regulated system of state management, it will not have a chance to establish a reputation on the international arena.
“On the other hand, the other week I wrote an article for The Economist’s website, in which I emphasized that Ms. Ashton [EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. – Ed.] should direct the EU efforts precisely at Ukraine. Well, maybe also Moldova and Belarus. This is where they must establish new missions and conduct very active policies in order to bring this region closer to the EU.”
If Russia runs out of oil and gas, will Ukraine’s present problems come to an end, too?
“No. Oil and gas are nothing like ill fate. Norway has both oil and gas, but this country has a democracy. The same is true of the USA. Russia had wonderful opportunities, and they were enhanced by both external and internal factors. But these opportunities were lost.”
I am a citizen of the Czech Republic. I read your book in Czech. Don’t you think that in the countries of the Eastern Bloc, people sometimes lack a sense of responsibility for the past? We have been pestering Germans for more than 65 years. However, if you ask, “Who on earth built this communism?” people won’t even perceive it. It is not just about party members, but rather the entire generation. They will only complain about their small old-age pensions.
“The question of responsibility is indeed very important. Germany has set a very high moral standard as to the reconsideration of its past. However, though the Soviet empire did disintegrate, too, it did it in a different way. And if Germans were fed with lies about their history for 14 years, while the Nazis were in power, the people in the former Eastern Bloc were brainwashed for decades.
“However, if we analyze present-day historiography and compare it to the historiography of 1989, we will see considerable progress. Here is just one striking example: the reconciliation between Poland and Ukraine, or between the Poles and the Lithuanians.
“I am not demonizing Russia — I am demonizing the Chekist regime which is in power there, because they despise the world and their own citizens and are robbing their own nation of its country. When Putin raises a toast to Andropov on the Cheka Day — can you imagine a chancellor of Germany raising a toast to the Gestapo? I would much rather see Russia as a country respected and admired by its neighbors, rather than the country which inspires fear.”
How can you account for the West’s slack reaction to the Russo-Georgian conflict?
“The West’s reaction to the war in Georgia was absolutely scandalous and inadmissible. When I was writing my book, I foresaw that such a situation was possible. It was one of my goals to prevent it.
“The first version of the book was written in September 2007, and the first edition came out in March 2008, a few months before the conflict in Georgia. After the summit in Bucharest, Putin virtually got the green light for his plans. He carried them out, and the West’s reaction proved very languid. Also, we could not restrict the self-destructive tendencies in Saakashvili’s actions.
“After this conflict one optimistic remark can be made: Georgia’s economy has survived. Moreover, it was even growing during the past year — the second economy in Europe after Poland’s. Saakashvili is continuing political and economic reforms. And it seems to me that in two years he will receive the extended agreement on the free trade zone with the EU, which he is after.”
Don’t you think that the present-day course for modernization in Russia is like Gorbachev’s perestroika? Doesn’t it resemble a sign of a potential future fall of the Chekists?
“The analysis of what was said by Medvedev’s closest environment, including Igor Yurgens and the rest of the progressive people, shows that they are talking about fighting the corruption and the need to upgrade the economy. However, I do not see a mechanism for radical changes. I’m afraid that this system of gentle authoritarian capitalism, based on private connections, will be even more enduring than the Soviet one.
“If we speak about radical changes, we will have to ask the powerful people some straightforward questions: Why have so many people been killed, and where has all the money gone to?”
