A Dispute about Ukraine and Russia: Chauvinism and Pragmatism Clash in Russia’s State Duma
Atter Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Ukraine, we cannot avoid discussing the “fermentation” of political thought in the Russian Federation. On the eve of the Russian leader’s visit, a bitter conflict erupted in Russia’s State Duma over the vision of future Russian-Ukrainian relations. What provoked the row was a demand made by the notorious Konstantin Zatulin, a deputy from the United Russia faction, to discuss the political situation in Ukraine, including alleged mass-scale repressions, and to defend “the legitimate rights of Russian investors.”
In fact it was an investor, Aleksandr Lebedev, who is also a Duma deputy from the United Russia faction, the co-chair of the Russian-Ukrainian Inter- Parliamentary Commission, and the former president of the National Reserve Bank, who spoke out against Zatulin. He condemned the demand and objected to admitting Zatulin, a politician “well-known for his political inflexibility,” to the Russian-Ukrainian Inter-Parliamentary Commission. He also said he was giving up his co-chairmanship of the commission in protest.
In fact, what we are witnessing today is a clash between the diehard chauvinism of Zatulin-type politicians, who keep goading the Russian leadership to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine and exert pressure on this country, and the pragmatic realism of Russian businessmen, such as Lebedev. Businessmen like him are making it clear that they are not inclined to work for political effect only.
Mr. Lebedev explained his vision of Ukrainian-Russian relations in an open letter to his parliamentary colleagues, which was published on the eve of President Putin’s arrival in Ukraine.
Among Lebedev’s pragmatic proposals is “giving the green light to reciprocal investments and joint economic projects, actively attracting private Russian capital to Ukraine’s economy, as well as filling the Single Economic Space with concrete deeds, not just idle talk.” Parrying Zatulin’s allegation that the Russians have humanitarian problems in Ukraine, Lebedev says, “You’d better not look for a black cat in a dark room — he’s not there. I can assure you that Ukraine, half of whose population speaks Russian, is capable of finding suitable ways to deal with the status of the Russian language by itself, without any foreign advice. And don’t tell us tall tales about repression unless, of course, you view elementary corruption control measures as ‘political victimization’.”
Commenting at a recent press conference on the likely consequences of Russia’s tough stance on Ukraine, Lebedev said, “When the State Duma is periodically rocked by calls to put pressure on Ukraine, cut off gas, electricity and sewerage, seize the Crimea first and then all the other ‘original Russian lands,’ all I can do is wonder why only 28, not 99, percent of Ukraine’s inhabitants are in favor of joining NATO.”
In Lebedev’s view, “one should not demonstratively and clumsily meddle in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The two countries’ elites should not spoil their relations, because it will be impossible to restore these relations by bureaucratic injunction alone.” “Now we must work out a philosophy and technology of strategic partnership with Ukraine and offer Kyiv a concrete program of our cooperation for decades to come, a program that will state in no uncertain terms why Ukraine really needs Russia. I am sure that if there are any problems in the relations between our two countries, they can only be solved in an atmosphere of cooperation, not confrontation,” the politician emphasized.
