The renowned Ukrainian politician Yevhen Marchuk is knowledgeable about what goes on behind the country’s political scene. Obviously this is an important factor making his comments all the more insightful. This ex-prime minister, minister of defense, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and secretary of the NSDC, is rightfully considered a top professional in foreign policy and national security. Certainly, he has his own preferences and personal inclinations, for the perception of politics is a somewhat subjective issue.
In the light of his modern vision of socio-political processes, it would be interesting to consider Marchuk’s reasons and assessments of the current problems of Ukraine’s national security, which he shared in a recent interview with one of Kyiv’s periodicals (Cf. Chyrva, Viktoriia. Formula of National Security: Yevhen Marchuk on Russian Fleet in Crimea and Ukraine’s Vulnerability, Ukrainsky Tyzhden, No.17, April 30 – May 6, 2010, pp. 26-29). This issue immediately attracted public attention. Thus, The Day will only do the right thing giving this utterly impartial and frank speech by the renowned representative of the Ukrainian political establishment in retrospect.
We believe that publishing some of the fundamental quotations can only do good, as it would increase the audience’s understanding of certain crucial issues. Marchuk’s opinions are so accurate that they are valued even by most reputable international analytical centers.
If you are curious as to what Marchuk actually said, please read the fragments of his sensational interview.
ON THE PROLONGATION OF RUSSIA’S BLACK SEA FLEET STAY UNTIL 2042 IN EXCHANGE FOR CHEAP GAS
“...In this case, trite explanations using economic arguments just won’t do. I failed to hear why this agreement does not violate the constitution of Ukraine... Besides, the abovementioned agreement is contrary to the “Regionals”’ pre-election slogans of unifying the nation.
“It is also obvious that a majority of society has not understood or supported this decision. Moreover, the arguments supposed to prove the dependence of economic and security parameters of this pact seem very weak and obscure...
“The arguments deducing the necessity of the pact from such factors as economic conditions and gas prices are evidently not enough. Overall, I can very well understand the Russians in this situation, but cannot say the same about the Ukrainians.
“I know the Russian elite fairly well, I have had an extensive experience negotiating with them on a range of different subjects. They are topnotch negotiators who are very good at defending their national interests. They calculate, very pragmatically and clearly, all probable options.
“In most of our elite, expansionist instincts are absent on the mental level. Not in the military sense of the word, of course, but in the sense of expanding the spheres of influence. I have experienced it more than once. We are more comfortable with our traditional attitude of ‘non-interference.’ This is where perhaps the idea of nonalignment comes from...”
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SURRENDER OF UKRAINIAN GAS TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY THE PRESENT REGIME
“Firstly, it is prohibited by law. And secondly, I am not sure that it is the worst thing that might happen. Nord Stream has already been built, and soon they will build South Stream. Ukraine transports 120 to 150 billion cubic meters of gas per year now. After the completion of these two pipelines, they will take over about 100 billion cubic meters. Consequently, it would be a mistake to think that the gas pipe is going to remain our perpetual serious national negotiation argument.
“By the way, one should consider the question why European partners agreed to the construction of these two gas ducts, each of which costs about 5 billion dollars. I think that the main reason lies in the repute of Ukraine. All in all, the problem of the GTS on the domestic level is overly politicized. What we need is not politicizing, but a sober calculation.”
ON PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH’S NUCLEAR CONCESSIONS TO THE USA
“...Let us start with the fact that our uranium, enriched approximately by 20 percent, is absolutely useless for nuclear power plants. It can only be used for scientific research. The uranium for bombs should be enriched by at least 95 percent. The experts who prepared this decision for the president certainly deserve praise. It was a successful international move made by Yanukovych’s team. I would say, the most effective move in the short time he has been in office. Also, from the civilizational perspective, Ukraine demonstrated that it had made its contribution to the relaxation of the nuclear threat...”
“...It is total rubbish to say that our highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear bomb, which will strengthen Ukraine’s prestige. Who in Ukraine can give an order to make a bomb, and what would be the motives? Anyone who would do it, would immediately become a political corpse... Even if it should work, it would mean that Ukraine has violated its obligations concerning its non-nuclear status, which would result in lengthly and harsh sanctions (and not only on the part of the nations which signed the Budapest Memorandum), followed by international isolation. Iran’s example is really revealing here. We should seek Ukraine’s strength not through threats to some imaginary enemies, but through economic development...”
ON THE ALLEGEDLY UNPAID REFUSAL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS DURING LEONID KRAVCHUK’S PRESIDENCY
“It is not quite the case. In reward for our refusal of nuclear weapons, the USA gave us a compensation of about 300 million dollars, Russia wrote off a part of our gas debt, and also supplied us with free nuclear fuel for our power stations for a year and half. Which is to say that it wasn’t just for nothing that we gave up our nuclear weapons. If the compensation was adequate is a different question. But many will tell you that we simply had no other way out. There was no way we could leave nukes on the territory of Ukraine...”
ON UKRAINE’S VIRTUAL DEFENSELESSNESS IN THE FACE OF POTENTIAL MILITARY THREAT
“I can understand whence this theme. Most Ukrainians do not fancy Ukraine joining the NATO, while the idea of its non-bloc status is appealing. However, this issue is impregnated with a complex of problems. Thus, Yanukovych set the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the task to prepare amendments to the law on fundamentals of national security, which would guarantee the country’s non-bloc status.
“Since the effective law clearly foresees Ukraine joining the NATO in the future, it turns out that the president is radically changing the direction of the country’s foreign policy in terms of security. So far, the North-Atlantic Treaty has been the sole 100 percent guarantee of security. However, I am absolutely uncertain if the country’s neutral status will guarantee that... Who is to protect Ukraine, should it go neutral? A mere declaration of neutrality is not enough. We need the guarantees from other countries, and of the UN. But what other countries? Neighbors like Russia? Or the G7? And how should it be ensured in international legislation? The essence of Ukraine’s bloc or non-bloc status is the same: reliable, long-term international security guarantees...”
ON THE POTENTIAL OF PRESENT-DAY UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP
“I think that Yanukovych’s team might prove stronger than Yushchenko’s, on the plane of organization, if not on that of intellectual potential. Yushchenko believed that he was more knowledgeable about foreign policy than anyone else. However, his foreign policy romanticism proved inefficient.
“Conversely, Yanukovych had never dealt with foreign policy, and he has obviously listened to experts in this sphere. Some may ridicule his habit to read his speeches from the sheet. But he does it right, as it involves complicated formulae, where each word and each intonation have a huge importance.”
ON THE DANGER OF YANUKOVYCH REPEATING YUSHCHENKO’S ERRORS
“There is no avoiding it: he had to pay for his election. Yet I am convinced that in 6–12 months Yanukovych will ‘reshuffle’ all of those appointments. I can say with certainty that Hryshchenko is going to stay, because he is a topnotch professional. However, it is hard to name someone else...
The current leadership proclaimed that when it comes into power, the country will enter a stable stage. But stability is also a feature typical for totalitarian nations. We have already heard the alarm ring, in particular, in what concerns the freedom of speech...”
As we can see, the ideas of Marchuk the politician are quite convincing: there is no reason for ignoring them. The Ukrainian public today is most worried by the question of whether the “new leadership” is able to create a strategy of development of Ukraine and, moreover, implement it. Clearly, there could be no exhaustive answer to this question.
Moreover, there could be no such answer whatsoever. The main thing here is to be adamant in what concerns national interests, to protect and safeguard them, albeit for the instinct of self-preservation.
Our more patriotic readers might peruse and reconsider Marchuk’s observations. They allow to have a deeper insight into the processes described in the article Formula of National Security. However, this experienced politician’s keenness of observation is not his sole virtue. His long experience of working in the top echelons of power led to his involvement in both theoretical development of fundamentals of Ukraine’s domestic and international policy, and their practical implementation. That is why he quite frankly speaks of both positive moments in the activities of the new Ukrainian leadership and, even more frankly, of the miscalculations, their causes, and possible ways for mending the situation in the future.
It is doubtlessly a positive moment. In any case, we need a public analysis of the leaders’ shortcomings. It is worth while using American experience of sensible assistance to the leaders in what concerns the performance of their duties.
Just imagine: as far back as in 1916, the analytical Brookings Institution was founded in Washington, D.C. Its main mission was a critical (!) analysis of the US federal administration’s activities. I do not even mention the many other similar brain centers which have been active in the USA for a long time. The main point, however, is that any presidential administration is always interested in such intellectual services. This gives some food for thought, doesn’t it?
Does anything like this exist in Ukraine? I do not know. Sad as it is, this country has suffered enough at the hands of unskillful administrators and leaders who have been unable to properly manage the events, and foresee them.
Well, in political science, a negative result is a result anyway. What is sad, however, is the fact that there is a tendency to forget that life is no scientific laboratory, and people are not chemical elements or mathematical values. And it would be a big mistake to pretend it is not the case.
We are living in times of rapid changes. To keep silent in such times means to be like a driver stargazing behind the wheel of a fast car.
Yurii KYLYMNYK holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and is currently living in Kyiv
