Alexander Motyl: Integration with the West is Ukraine’s optimum choice

Dr. Alexander J.Motyl, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University, Deputy Director of the Center for Global Change and Governance, Co-Director of the Central and East European Studies Program, author of several fiction and non-fiction books, has been visiting Ukraine practically every year [since the proclamation of national independence — Ed]. During his visits Dr. Motyl has met with Ukrainian university students. In the following interview he shares his views on Ukraine’s international image and foreign policy.

Dr. Motyl: “Over the past couple of years Europe, America, and Russia have displayed a rather typical geopolitical attitude, with America getting weaker and searching for allies, including rapprochement with Russia — I consider this absolutely normal, although I don’t regard this as proof of a lasting trend. I believe that Obama is looking for a way out of the current crisis. France and Germany are also acting with an eye to geopolitical objectives in the first place. For them, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, and other countries are of minor importance, for gas supplies are uppermost on their agenda. As for the consequences, in terms of democratic progress, this is something further down on their agenda.”

How is Ukraine supposed to implement its foreign political course in this context?

“From the geopolitical point of view, there are two promising geopoli­ti­cal approaches: (a) partnership, something Ukraine badly needs, considering that Russia will remain its headache in terms of national security. It’s not that Russians are bad people, simply that Russia remains Ukraine’s ‘big brother’ breathing down its neck — ditto US and Mexico. Mexicans will never love or trust Americans, no matter what good they mean for their country. This is also normal, considering that the Mexicans will always regard the Americans as the ‘big brother’ who keeps breathing down their neck.

“Like I said, there are two options. Europe is Ukraine’s number one ally, but this option is complicated by the need to meet a number of [EU] requirements. Option two is America. [That would mean] NATO membership. In other words, Ukraine will have to take active steps in this direction, and become an active partner of America and NATO. There is also another option — which I personally find to be quite logical — namely, what ex-President Viktor Yushchenko came up with: integration into the West.

“There is also the ‘multivectoral’ option, originally introduced by ex-Presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine. This one boils down to Ukraine running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. This stand has little to do with a non-bloc status, rather with something exact opposite, something like playing one bloc against the other, something Leonid Kuchma did quite well, considering that this game secured Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.”

What about Ukraine’s current President Viktor Yanukovych?

“His political course doesn’t stand to logic. In fact, I can’t understand how this man is implementing his policy. This is either a case study in [political] stupidity or ideology, when you’re doing what others are telling you to do. Be that as it may, from the geopolitical point of view, this man is doing something no one would have done in his place. Love or hatred of Russia isn’t the point — let’s hope that these countries will have normal relations. The fact is that his policy is illogical. On the one hand, he says Ukraine is a non-bloc country (which excludes one option); on the other hand, he signs all kinds of agreements with Russia that go in only one direction: Ukraine’s rapprochement with Russia. This way Ukraine will lose something very substantial, perhaps even its national sovereignty. I’m not even sure how to explain this. On the one hand, there is the possibility of there being people in Yanukovych’s entourage who take orders from the Kremlin. There is another possibility — and I’m getting increasingly convinced that this is what is actually happening in Ukraine: the current administration is made up of plain ordinary nincompoops; I am baffled by their incompetence. They are worse than anyone in Yushchenko or Tymoshenko’s teams. I have never seen anything like it!”

Will Ukraine be able to show progress without integrating into NATO or EU?

“Absolutely. If only EU and NATO member countries could show progress, what about China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, even Brazil? This is a possibility, but it depends on the domestic political course. Of course, if you can join a bloc, this could help you uphold such trends. Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong were fully or partially British colonies, but this status helped their progress. Ukraine’s NATO membership would be an advantage, although it wouldn’t solve Ukraine’s national security problems. NATO would be hard put to carry out an incursion. Try to visualize a ‘Russian Liberation Front’ proclaiming national independence in Narva and condemning ‘Estonian Nazis’ for acts of violence against the ethnic Russians. What would happen next? Would Germany, France or Italy send tanks to liberate Narva? Hardly likely. There would be international debates, communiques, commissions, talks between Medvedev and Estonian officials, you name it. But NATO membership offers a fair chance of domestic security.”

Ukraine has a unique geographical position, bordering on the EU and Russia. Can this country take advantage of this position?

“I believe Ukraine would benefit by using this position, although for reasons best known to its current administration, no such steps have been ta­ken — a situation I can’t understand. Ukraine is faced with a fantastic divide et impera opportunity, what with NATO and Russia beckoning, a political course that has been followed by all Third-World countries, among them Pakistan and India. Yet there is Ukraine and its government sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb. This is illogical, I can’t understand it.”

There could be some logic, consi­dering that the current Ukrainian administration represents certain oligarchic interests. This would explain the comparatively cheap gas supplies and extended Russian Black Sea Fleet deployment in the Crimea.

“Partially so, considering the infamous accords made with Moscow in Kharkiv. The Russians are paying token rent for the Black Sea Fleet in Se­vastopol. This is common knowledge. You want to renew the deployment contract for 25 years, go right ahead, provided you pay a reasonable price, not the one being paid. What’s happening is known to the Russians, Ukrainians, and political analysts in the West. Consider what the Philippines are charging the US, this is a case study in extortion… They want to keep their fleet in Ukraine, so they must pay the price. Number two, the low gas supply costs. They aren’t as low as meets the eye. You want to part with something, then do so and be ade­quately paid. As it was, Ukraine made a losing bargain, probably becau­se of incompetent ma­na­ge­ment/go­vern­ment, for it stood a fair chance. Pakistan is an ideal example. This kind of politics is being carried out by a number of countries, but in Ukraine, for reasons left to be fathomed, it boils down to a give-and-receive-nothing-in- return bottom line, as practiced by Kravchuk and Kuchma.”

What about the consequences of Viktor Yanukovych and his team, in terms of haphazard foreign policy?

“Here the main problem is the source of such policy. I believe that this source is incompetent or stupid in the first place, for if this really is the case, then incompetence is [officially] made competence, so that a stupid bureaucrat is made to look smart. George Bush looked stupid the first four years of his presidency, but made a good performance of the next four years. If George Bush could do this, Viktor Yanukovych may well do so in Ukraine.

“However, if the matter pertains to ideology, the situation will remain the same. I believe that the first option looks practical in Ukraine, considering that the relationships between Kyiv and Moscow have worsened over the past couple of weeks, with the Ukrainian side coming up with requirements the Rus­sian side has to consider. This is proof of insight on the Ukrainian side, that this side will change its stand.

“For as long as Ukraine maintains its current political course, it will remain isolated from the West by upholding its stand as a kind of Russian colony. The longer Ukraine maintains this stand, the harder its way out; there are trends that may well become eventually dangerous.

“The West is sick and tired of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko; there have been expectations that never came true; there have been inner squabbles — then Yanukovych became president of Ukraine. If he keeps guiding Ukraine in the direction of Russia, Europe will lose what little interest there is left in Ukraine, for there will be nothing left to talk about, so the main problem for Ukraine is this insight.”

What do you think is Ukraine’s best geopolitical option? Integration into the West, Russia, or running with the hare and hunting with the hounds?

“I think that Ukraine should integrate with the West. This would be its optimum choice; also, balanced relations between the West and Russia. At present, the first option doesn’t seem practical, considering that the West and Europe aren’t showing much interest. The second option looks practical, although the third one appears most practical. Under the circumstances, Ukraine would fare best by balancing its relations between both partners, although the first option might become practical with time.”