The West and Ukraine
Those who have had at least a few of their features published know that it is always a pleasure when someone you hold in authority takes note of what you have written, appreciates and assesses it in a well-wishing manner. I felt like this when reading the column by Prof. James Mace titled “Liberal Imperialism” appearing in The Day’s October 7 issue.
But it is not just that receiving credit is always a pleasure. In his column Prof. Mace mentions the threat of “Finlandization” of Ukraine, meaning that in the 1950-80s Finland was prevented from doing what the Soviets frowned upon. This issue is especially relevant for me, since I wrote of similar things in my article “Demonstrative Disfavor” carried in Den’s February 8 issue.
My article was initially titled “Taiwanese Syndrome.” As you know, while Taiwan is de facto recognized by all governments, almost none recognizes it de jure, because such recognition would offend China, and China’s opinion holds sway with almost every government in the world. The problems of Taiwan are similar to those once faced by Finland. However, Finland was obviously in a less difficult situation, since it was recognized both de facto and de jure. The situation changed gradually, and there came a time when it was free to do what the Soviets disapproved of.
The difference between de jure and de facto recognition and a phenomenon whereby one country dances to the whims of another in their relationship can be termed the Taiwanese syndrome or, if you like, the Finnish syndrome. A typical feature of this syndrome is that the real reasons behind the double standards applied to the victim country are not eagerly discussed, for which reason this victim is often the target of criticism; the dominant countries are quick to expose the victim’s sins, under the pretence of which it is punished.
However, such faultfinding cannot continue indefinitely, because those at the top know the real reasons. As we know, when one person knows something, it is only half a secret. Meanwhile, when two persons know it, it is not a secret anymore, and it is only a matter of time before everybody else knows it. Everything is exposed to the public gaze. Accusations begin to sound more and more comical and are discarded. Instead, the policy of stopping information leaks is adopted. Do you often hear about the reasons behind the Taiwanese syndrome these days?
I my article, “Demonstrative Disfavor,” I attempted to show that Ukraine has become a victim of precisely this Taiwanese or, if you like, Finnish syndrome. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia took great pains to show to the world that it views the newly formed states as something temporary and was extremely intolerant of any signs of their true recognition. Meanwhile, the remaining world tried to play up to Russia on this.
The world obviously had good reasons to do so and letting the syndrome develop. Meanwhile, for Ukraine this was very painful and difficult. The more so that the symptoms were classic and very pronounced. The syndrome started immediately. Recall the urgent visit by then American President Bush pere to Kyiv with recommendations not to part with Russia. One cannot say with certainty that he voiced the actual stand of the US and not what those in Moscow wanted to hear. Soon afterward Ukraine was inundated with accusations of all imaginable conceivable and unimaginable sins, threatened with sanctions, blacklists, and saw its standing in all possible ratings plummet. The mere mention of this disgusts me.
As a result, Ukraine has lost a great deal, and its losses are not confined solely to the investment it never received. The worst thing is that the syndrome helped conserve the Ukrainians’ inferiority complex so painstakingly nurtured by the Russian Empire. The syndrome also promoted the conservation of Ukrainians’ post-genocidal shock, to which Prof. Mace has dedicated much ink.
The syndrome affected what the West purportedly supported, namely, the rudiments of a civil society in Ukraine, and hurt the opposition forces and Ukraine’s Western orientation. The opposition has developed a caste of so- called well-wishers specializing in supplying the West with materials discrediting Ukraine. Among the media outlets there is a group of so-called supporters of domestic scandals. All of the above has been done with blatant disregard for the national character of Ukrainians and their worldview. As a result, everything they cherished ended up being discredited, and the people have been alienated from the West and forced to give up their ideas.
However, the West also lost something as a result of this. By fooling Ukraine, the West also fooled itself. The politicians, who knew the actual reasons full well, had to fool their citizens, their own so-called civil society, thereby increasing the gap between themselves and this society, making it more illusory. After all, civil society is largely an illusion of the people. But this illusion is very useful, and it should be nurtured, so that it could become more and more material. For this illusion to be nurtured, that same civil society cannot be used as a tool for certain unscrupulous political ends. Meanwhile, Western civil society has largely become such a tool of what concerns Ukraine. This has not done it any good.
As the story unfolded, my attitude toward the West changed. In what way? Try to picture a road leading to something wonderful and a big and beautiful roadside portrait of Don Quixote clad in glittering armor. Two Sancho Panzas stand in front of the portrait — one richly clad and portly and the other emaciated and wearing threadbare clothes. The rich one points to the portrait and says to the poor one: “See how I look? If you become like this, we’ll be friends.”
This illustrates the essence of the relationship between the West and Ukraine. Both sides have their own Sancho Panzas and Don Quixotes. Prof. James Mace is no doubt one of their Don Quixotes.
Unfortunately, it is not the Don Quixotes who decide which way the oil should flow. They do not make many important decisions either. By contrast, the Sancho Panzas choose what is more profitable for them. And there is no telling whether they think that it is time to tread on Russia’s sore spot and make the oil flow west or continue to play up to Russia and, accordingly, rein in Ukraine, in which case the oil will be pumped the other direction. No matter how stupid they may be and no matter how harmful the reverse will be for Ukraine, it is not they who will suffer the consequences.
I am not inclined to blame everything on Pres. Kuchma and Ukraine’s flawed policy. I am inclined to think that Western politicians do not have a much better record than ours do. I would say it is even worse, considering the much easier conditions under which they work.
As Newton wrote, “If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” Likewise, all contemporary Western politicians stand on the shoulders of giants, that is, their predecessors from whom they have inherited their huge experience. Meanwhile, Ukrainian politicians stand on barren soil. To be more precise, this is not simply barren, but painstakingly scorched land, in particular, by the Holodomor Manmade Famine/ Genocide of the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile the West is in no hurry to recognize the Ukrainian Famine/ Genocide. The syndrome must be at play in this case also.
Had the West been more resolute, it would have long ago found not only the money for filling the pipeline with technical oil (for the West this would cost very little, which, moreover, would return a profit) but also those to collect millions of tons of oil at the receiving end. The pipeline would have operated at full capacity by now.
Meanwhile, their Sancho Panzas might conclude that it is too early to do this. They will stand aside for the meantime and leave our Sancho Panzas yet again to face Russia alone. Then they will have to think how to snatch at least something from the pipeline and shift to somebody else the blame for a fiasco of a wonderful project. Meanwhile, our Sancho Panzas will not be the first in line to shoulder the blame. There is absolutely no need to debase ourselves.
And this is not only about backpumping. I have had the honor to point on the pages of The Day to another circumstance and would like to mention it again. This is Ukraine’s nuclear precedent. Ukraine has scrapped its nuclear arsenal — the world’s third largest — in exchange for guarantees of safety from the world’s mightiest. Soon thereafter, Ukraine was made a whipping boy, a universal scapegoat, and everybody’s fool. The question of whether North Korea and other so-called threshold countries (countries which do not officially possess nuclear weapons but which have the technological and scientific potential to do so or have performed nuclear tests — Ed.) have seen this and what conclusions they have made on scrapping their nuclear arsenals can be considered a rhetorical one. Also rhetorical is the question of whether their conclusions benefit world peace and stability.
And the question is not in the reverse alone. But it also concerns Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity guaranteed by the countries, some of which now try to infringe it, while the others do not try to prevent them from doing this, although they have all the means to do so at minimum cost and even make a profit. But this does not fit in with their policy influenced by the Taiwan-Finnish syndrome. Now North Korea or some other country is watching all this and thinking: “Who will expose us to whom after we disarm?”
This is a small world, where everything is interconnected.
I appreciate the kind words of a wise friend. Unfortunately, our windmills are real, and if I have taken some thoughts from him, I also appreciate the presence of giants on whose shoulders I might from time to time stand. We always stand on each other’s shoulders from time to time. In the West they call this discourse — Don QUIXOTE, a.k.a. James E. MACE
