Triumph of Multivectoralism

I must admit my error. Until recently I did not believe a multivector policy was possible. Now I do. We used to have two vectors: Western and Eastern. Indeed, East is East and West is West, never the twain to meet. This must have been the basis of the allegedly lasting triumph of our diplomacy. Now that our Eastern brothers are coming to terms with our Western friend in Paris, that is, building a gas pipeline bypassing long-suffering of Ukraine, considering that our beloved brothers in the East seem oblivious to the fact that their President did go for a walk with ours in Sochi one starlit night, while pressuring our Western friends to pressure us, actually, not so much us as our exacting Polish friends. Where does this leave us? Holding what vector?

Becoming multivectoral means no choice, rather than having any. I truly hope that the Paris summit offered sufficient evidence even for people on Bankova St. [in the Presidential Administration] to realize as much, despite their innate practice of living in their own dream world, born primarily of their characteristic incompetence. If you will pardon my tautology, foreign policy should stay foreign, not multivectoral. It should rely on a clear concept of priorities and capabilities. Russia, Sochi? Fine, let it be. Then why should our friends want to frame us and make us lick their boots, using those we still regard as trustworthy helpers? The West? Great! But what can we actually offer? If we are still Moscow-dominated in the Western public and political eye, and if we are struggling to protect this “sacred right,” can we really expect the West to protect us from all that? Jacques Chirac or Aleksander Kwasniewski did not visit Sochi.

We must finally determine our own concept of this multivectoral approach. If we do not, we will face a Russian-US summit deciding precisely where we stand; Lazarenko will be deported to Russia, and he will quickly get things off his chest conversing with Russian investigating officers (Russia’s penal system is a bit different from the US one with its scrupulous, democratic approach). Overnight, his testimony will be carried by all the Moscow newspapers. Of course, I am considering a virtual reality, but a Russian-US summit could well turn out a pressing reality. Bill Clinton has also bidden farewell to Ukraine and the next White House resident has not bothered to say hello. Actually, why should this bother protecting us from Moscow, considering our being under the Kremlin’s “harmonious influence?” Our multivectoral approach is stuck in the door, such that we can neither step back to Sochi or move forward to Cannes. Something has to be done to shove Ukraine one way or the other.