Viktor CHERNOMYRDIN: “We need each other”

Since 2001 Viktor Chernomyrdin, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, has represented the interests of the Russian state in Ukraine. During this time numerous changes have taken place both in Ukraine and in Russia. Naturally, the Russian ambassador knows the foreign policy departments of both countries inside out. Another thing to remember is that for a long time Chernomyrdin headed the Russian government and worked in direct contact with Ukraine’s prime ministers.

His views are of considerable interest not only to The Day’s readers but also to the Ukrainian elite, and are worthy of consideration. In a discussion with The Day’s journalists Chernomyrdin spoke about alarming trends in trade and economic ties between the two countries and explained why Russian businesses are wary of investing in Ukraine.

The ambassador suggested that the acute problems between Ukraine and Russia can be resolved at the negotiating table. He also spoke about Russia’s perspective on the challenges stemming from the transition from a presidential to a parliamentary-presidential republic and explained how Russia may react to Ukraine’s possible NATO membership.

NOT ABOUT NATURAL GAS

It is often said that we overpoliticize our relations. Let us demonstrate a fundamentally different approach. Let us begin with something other than natural gas and complaints.

“Everything is fine here.”

Of course, if you have natural gas, you have no problems.

“Not at all. In Russia the price of domestically consumed natural gas is also going up.”

Perhaps the problem lies in monopolism?

“That has nothing to do with the price. The price has to rise because expenditures are increasing. Look at how the prices for metal and metal production have gone up. Your country also produces metal. Natural gas and petroleum production are the most metal-intensive industries. They consume large quantities of metal, and in the Far East special metal, which is more expensive than regular metal, has to be used. What do we do then?”

In Russia prices were higher than in Ukraine before the increase.

“Yes, this is true. But you still haven’t switched to the new prices either. You are still living with the old prices.”

THE CONSORTIUM

Our readers will not understand if we don’t ask you about Ukrainian-Russian relations in the natural gas sector. You recently said that 0 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas is a gift to Ukraine. One can agree with this. But in this case Russia would have to receive a gift in return. There was much speculation in the press on this topic, with official denials from both sides. Interestingly, it was a Russia-based newspaper that initiated the speculations. But nobody, neither in Russia, nor in Ukraine, mentioned the international gas transporting consortium, which would make a nice gift in return for natural gas. What do you think?

“Ukraine and Russia, later joined by Germany, did agree to create a consortium to operate Ukraine’s gas transporting system. The consortium is needed because Russia owns natural gas, Europe consumes it, and continuous gas delivery is vital for both. Unfortunately, today we cannot be certain of this, as the gas pipelines and other complex facilities of the gas transporting system require billions of dollars yearly for maintenance and upgrading. Ukraine doesn’t possess such resources, and this task would be assigned to the consortium. It was already created, all the statutory documents were signed, and the management bodies were set up. Moreover, the consortium even launched a concrete project-construction of the gas pipeline between Bohorodchany and Uzhhorod. But unfortunately nothing is being done there.”

Is this Russia’s view of the consortium-a company to build a separate pipeline for itself?

“No. As we stated at the beginning, we would like to create a pipeline management consortium. And I have already explained why.”

But you must know that in Ukraine privatization of gas- main pipelines is illegal?

“We have no intention to privatize anything. But it is your business to make everything conform to the law.”

SOME PLEASANT THINGS

Let us talk about something pleasant. Can you say how much the volume of Russian-Ukrainian trade has increased during your term as an ambassador?

“Of course, I can. By the end of 2000 it amounted approximately to billions. In 2005 the figure was billions without services and billions with services. In my opinion, by the end of 2006 the volume of trade will reach several billions. I came to Ukraine in 2001, and I say right away that one shouldn’t associate all this with me and my presence here.”

But you still had some kind of influence.

“That’s why I came here. I was asked to and I agreed. How do I treat these figures? I would like to point out that this year the increase in trade was smaller. It used to reach an annual 35 to 37 percent, but now it is only 14 percent. So far we are in the positive figures but the rate has dropped sharply. And this will show up later. The volume of trade used to increase by over two billion dollars every year. If we don’t influence this situation, although as a matter of fact it is already changing, this will affect the overall volume of trade, which is, naturally, undesirable.”

You mentioned politics. Was it politics that caused the decrease?

“Of course. It couldn’t have failed to affect it. The last few years have been turbulent in your country. I can give you a simple example. Two years ago, when Viktor Yushchenko came to power in Ukraine, an intergovernmental committee was transformed into an interstate committee headed by the presidents. This was unprecedented. It was the first time in history that the president of Russia headed an interstate committee. But in those two years not a single meeting of the committee has taken place.”

Who is better at trading, Ukraine or Russia?

“This kind of parameter doesn’t exist. The trade volume was a billion and became a billion. But Ukraine’s trade volume with the whole EU is a billion. Is that a little or a lot? Who is better at trading? In my opinion, trade is not bad where there are normal relations. Our countries need each other. We were so integrated that we need products from each other.”

But you said that the trade volume is not increasing as it used to. In 2001 you said that Ukrainian investments in Russia were just around the corner.

“Ukrainian exports to Russia have dropped, as well as imports from Russia.”

But this was an artificial reduction.

“Yes, you are right. In 2005 Ukraine delivered 700 million dollars’ worth of meat and milk products, whereas in 2006 the volume dropped to zero. There were both objective and subjective causes behind this. As far as investments are concerned, in 2001 Russia was the fifth biggest investor in Ukraine. Now it ranks seventh.”

ON STABILITY

What is the cause of the decline in investment?

“I have to say that there are many problems. But the foremost one is stability.”

Does the Ukrainian market frighten investors with its instability?

“No, no. It’s not the market that frightens investors. I am talking about the stability needed for investment. Investments and money like things to be quiet. An investor will never take his money somewhere where he does not understand what is going on.”

Now is it clear what is going on?

“For us it has always been clear.”

Can you explain?

“What is difficult to understand here? We went through all this ourselves. It is surprising to me. Our investors need to be bolder here in Ukraine. Why aren’t they coming? I don’t know. But frankly, they are not coming because they have their doubts and are not too willing to invest here.”

Even now?

“Why now? Has anything changed?”

Russia wanted to see Viktor Yanukovych as the president. He became the prime minister and has greater power than the president. So what is the problem?

“Well, this kind of thing doesn’t just happen. How long has he been working?”

But all the same, investments should come happily.

“Not at all. Investors don’t act like that. This takes time. I am convinced that things will sort themselves out. Your government is doing everything possible for that.”

ON BUILDING PARTIES

Mr. Chernomyrdin, frequent changes of government are a typical feature of parliamentary-presidential republics. I understand that you are under no obligation to give advice or express your opinions. But Askar Akaev, the ex-president of Kyrgyzstan, recently said that for the post-Soviet countries in transition the parliamentary-presidential model may have some undesirable consequences. What do you think?

“What can one say? When they started talking about the transition to a new, parliamentary- presidential, model in Ukraine, we made our position clear. We believed that the timing for the transition was wrong. I will explain why. First of all, there was a serious political situation in the country. In the conditions of political and economic instability the Constitution should not be changed or amended. The Constitution is a document that is best kept unchanged. But life changes and therefore changes can be introduced, but very carefully — and only when there is agreement in the country and all political forces are of the opinion that yes, we need to make amendments. And this is not done during a confrontation and not to somebody’s disadvantage or in order to limit somebody. But here, when the political confrontation reached its apogee, a decision is adopted to amend the Constitution. And not only to amend it, but to switch to a new-parliamentary presidential-form of government.

How can one venture into something like this when the country does not have well-established party organizations that would take responsibility and stick to their positions? But something like this does not exist yet, neither in your country, nor in ours. I don’t know what Akaev had in mind; perhaps the same thing. But if there is no rigid adherence to the party line, what do we do in this situation? There are many questions like that. But for Ukraine this is already in the past. Now one needs to think about the future.”

What is the origin of the theory that the political reform was brought about by Russia-oriented politicians in order to block an unwanted president?

“God forbid. Let it drop. This is beyond human comprehension. You can ask Leonid Kuchma and he will tell you. We had these kinds of talks with him. On numerous occasions our president Vladimir Putin explained the position of our government and country to everybody.”

Mr. Chernomyrdin, isn’t the Russian situation the opposite extreme? We exhibit, so to speak, a trend toward anarchy, but in your country there is always a tendency toward hyperfunction. Doesn’t it seem to you that in this respect Russia puts too much pressure on its political parties and domestic life and does not allow them to develop?

It took us a long time to arrive at what we now have in Russia. I have been directly involved in all these attempts at finding the right model. All of us understood even earlier, when we abandoned the Communist Party and the rigid vertical structure that was primarily a rigid party system and secondly, a system of administration. We are paying attention to everything that is taking place in the world. In any civilized country there are, as a rule, two or three parties that determine everything. One party or another wins. If one party doesn’t win, consensus is reached and a coalition government is formed. There is no other way. But in Russia we started out with 130 parties. I myself organized a party. At the time the president and the whole government made a decision to create a party organization. It was decided to form left and right centers and cut off the extremes on both sides, although it was already understood that life itself would cut them off.”

We recently talked about the hopes that we have for the new generation. But what will it be like? And what new standards will appear in the domestic policy and in relations between Ukraine and Russia in this connection? Doesn’t it seem that today’s relations that we are criticizing are much better than those that will be established by young pragmatists and also partly by supercynics?

“I am talking about my country. I am not talking about our relations yet. I am saying that we are in the process of creating and establishing a totally new state.”

What will this country generally look like?

“We are going to create a free democratic state with all its attributes. When I read various articles, including some moldy ones, I understand that there is more malice in them. They are reprinted from all sorts of periodicals.”

It is true that the perception of Russia may often be quite alarming. In particular, the image of the new Russia is still not very pleasing.

“Right. But a strong Russia has never pleased anyone-never. And Russia has never been a country to please someone. Look back at our history. What caused the First World War? Russia was the most industrialized country in Europe at the time, and the rate of industrialization was astounding. But relatives and courts, so to speak, started a war against each other. Despite their ties of blood and everything else, they went to war all the same because Russia was sticking in their craw. And it has always been like this. We have nobody on whom we can depend. We have never begged and will never do that. You understand. We won’t! We are creating our country ourselves.”

Mr. Chernomyrdin, I hope that this is not a hint, because we are often reproached for having two different mentalities. Russia is building itself up on its own, while Ukraine is always demanding and expecting something from Russia. But we are also learning to be independent.

“I headed the Russian government when the economy and the gold and currency exchange reserves were almost at zero level, and salaries were not being paid. All the same, we did not ask anyone for anything. Moreover, we were repaying our debts, including tsarist debts. The Soviet Union could not do this, but I signed an agreement in 1994 and we repaid tsarist debts to France. Yes, we used loans, just like any other country. But we never begged.”

At a certain stage the state assumes the part of a script writer and somehow tries to facilitate the development of parties. But isn’t this associated with certain expenditures? For example, right now a lot of jokesters are saying that there are three motherlands in the Duma. Is there a different opinion and how is it taken into account? How dangerous is this for the future of Russia? Moreover, the spread of such attitudes as xenophobia and chauvinism is being observed in the world. These, too, are alarming signals, and one cannot afford to underestimate them.

“We are being equated not only with nationalism, but even, as I see in the press, with fascism. Extreme nationalism will never prevail in Russia. Never! In terms of mentality we are different people. We have a totally different mentality. I don’t even want to comment on publications like that.”

The Georgia story is obviously being implied here.

“What does Georgia have to do with this?”

But many Russians also felt uncomfortable because of the Georgian-Russian affair. To my mind, this is really a case of overkill.

“Perhaps it is in a way. But let us look at this from a different angle. All this prattle and insults-how can one stand this? How long are we going to tolerate this?”

But children were being removed from schools. This is not right either.

“Those who did this were punished. Somebody tried to conduct a census and to find out who is who through the children. They were punished right away. Are there mental cases only your country? We have more. There are more of us. No need to pay attention to this.”

ON SIGNALS AND STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS

We have many unresolved issues in the economy, and we are all interested in increased investment in both countries. It seems to us that the statement made by Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, who before his visit to Kyiv said that the role of the Russian language and the topic of the Holodomor are still a stumbling block in our relations, only increases tensions. Perhaps we need to consider the specific features of the situation in Ukraine and not be active in bringing to the forefront a domestic issue that is already a hot topic in the country and which is now also being fueled from the outside.

“You know that this issue is being raised only here. In Russia it is not.”

But the minister said...

“The minister said this because we are receiving signals. He participated in a Congress of Compatriots in St. Petersburg along with representatives of 80 countries, and the issue of the Russian language was raised there. We are working on this issue everywhere where our compatriots live.”

Your former compatriots or your future compatriots?

“As for our future compatriots, I don’t know.”

Someone made a very apt remark about today’s compatriots. President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia put it rather bluntly. He disagreed with Russia designating as its compatriots representatives of nationalities that live on the territory of Estonia-not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and others. “They are our compatriots,” the Estonian president emphasized in an interview to the Russian mass media.

“He said it right.”

And then journalists ratcheted up the tension by saying that Russia has no compatriots in Estonia. Those people are citizens of Estonia, and naturally this caused a storm of emotions. But this is understandable.

“We also want to clarify things for ourselves. We are also raising this question. When I am asked about the Russian language, I say, “What does Russian have to do with this?” It is there on its own-this language. But if we speak about Ukraine and Estonia, we speak about citizens of Ukraine and Estonia, whose native language is Russian. And you need, first of all, to learn who your citizens are. There are millions of them and for them human rights are not empty words.”

God willing, this sound perspective will also win out in Russian political circles. Because sometimes an inaccurate word may give a signal and then movements appear, such as the organizations that were recently created in Moscow, which are demanding the return of the Crimea to Russia and withdrawal from the Russian- Ukrainian treaty. But you yourself took part in preparing the treaty.

“Yes, of course.”

So what is your attitude to the fact that many people consider this treaty outdated?

“No. This is what they say mainly here in Ukraine. In Russia they don’t think this. In our country this issue is being raised by some politicians but they have a right to. Have you ever heard from the leaders of the country (politicians come in various types) about revising the treaty? But when they raise the question of the Black Sea Fleet, it is immediately tied to a revision of the treaty. As soon as someone says one word about revising treaties, then all the questions connected with other international treaties will be examined immediately. That’s the point. By the way, I have never heard of it; what kind of movement is this in Russia?”

There is such a movement. But I hope it doesn’t have any influence yet.

“I declare that it does not exist and will not. But I am hearing state officials raising the question of the fleet’s early withdrawal. We reached an agreement about Azov and Kerch. Others came and began talking about revising and canceling the prior decisions. Listen, is this right? We cannot allow this to happen. You will never hear something like this from us because a decision was reached. We agreed on the borders and forgot about these questions.”

BUILDING RELATIONS

When the previous government was in power, many experts described our bilateral relations as bad. Even Yanukovych said recently that our relations were marked by inertia and confusion. Do you agree with the opinion that they were bad? Why wasn’t the previous government able to build good relations?

“It couldn’t.”

And why not?

“I don’t know. You better ask them. Whether the relations were bad or not-this may not be true. I don’t know whether Yanukovych said this. There is no such criterion as bad or good relations.”

In a nutshell, there were no meetings.

“No, there weren’t. Fradkov, the Russian premier, didn’t make a single visit to Ukraine until this year. Several prime ministers changed here while he has been the prime minister in Russia.”

Perhaps this is not just Ukraine’s fault.

“There was Tymoshenko. We made proposals and invited her. But she wasn’t able to come. I told her, “Then you invite us.” But she didn’t invite us. This is a fact. Then there was another prime minister. Yekhanurov was in Moscow, and more than once. But the stage of opening up and resuming work hasn’t been reached. I think this is bad. I am responsible for trade and economic ties and represent the Russian president here in Ukraine. I would say that perhaps we haven’t done our share. As I understand it, if there are no meetings, there are no decisions. It is important to meet. Whether you like it or not, whether you are liked and respected or not-this has nothing to do with the matter. So they shouldn’t go to each other’s homes. But one needs to take care of things at the state level.”

There must have been a long braking path on the part of Russia as well. You shouldn’t have proceeded from whether Russia liked President Yushchenko and his team at the first stage. Not everybody in Ukraine was in raptures about how things were developing either. But it was a fait accompli and perhaps you needed to reject the mistakes of political strategists more calmly and say, “We are going to work with this Ukrainian government.”

“I can say that we welcomed everyone.”

But you must have welcomed them in secret because nobody stated this officially.

“What secrets? To come in secret-how does that work?”

There was information about a secret trip by Tymoshenko.

“We welcomed everyone.”

Incidentally, some people who left when things were heating up are now of special interest to Minister of Internal Affairs Lutsenko, who all this time has been trying to bring back Bilokon, Bodelan, and Bakai. Is there some kind of problem here at the international level?

“There is no problem.”

Bakai is a citizen of Russia, right?

“He has been for a long time.”

At least this has been established.

ON BREAKTHROUGHS

Mr. Chernomyrdin, our countries’ representatives are now meeting more frequently, and meetings of the various subcommittees of the interstate committee are taking place. Can we expect a breakthrough in the acute problems that have accumulated between our countries? This includes inventorying the property of the Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea, delimitation of the Azov-Kerch waters, etc.

“As far as inventorying is concerned, we came to an agreement at a meeting of the subcommittee that took place in Sevastopil. An important decision was made concerning inventorying. Specialists are now working, i.e., those who know these questions directly and are responsible for them. There were several questions we didn’t agree on, but we resolved to work within a certain deadline, meet again, and then report at the next meeting.”

But how are you going to resolve the question of transferring navigation and hydrographic facilities to the Ukrainian government? Ukraine is supposed to be responsible for the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, but the facilities are now at the disposal of the Black Sea Fleet. Moreover, a court ruling ordered the Russian side to transfer these facilities.

“The same old story again. I have said many times-what do the courts have to do with this? There is an international treaty ratified by the parliaments of Ukraine and Russia. Let us work within the framework of this treaty, which covers all points. The approach itself has to be understandable. And at the same time it should be well-grounded. What does it mean that a court ruled to take the facilities away? What does a local court have to do with this? Everything has to be resolved in accordance with the treaty. It is my conviction that the facilities will be transferred. Now both fleets are operating. A system has been set up. Why should it be dismantled? The time will come and, of course, we will transfer. But this has to be resolved at the negotiating table and in accordance with the treaty. When we signed the treaty in 1997, we were not able to foresee everything. For this reason a special committee was created, which has been constantly working on these specific questions.”

When we speak about the prospects of the Black Sea Fleet, is it desirable for Russia that the fleet remain in the Crimea? What price is Russia going to pay for this?

“Let us live to that time and then we will see. It will be a different time and people will be different, not burdened with anything. I believe that a solution will be found. I have said before and I can confirm it again-Russia will not be left without a fleet in the Black Sea, whether Ukraine likes it or not. This is not Ukraine’s business. We have our own position and our own line. We cannot rely on anyone in matters of security. And we are not relying on anyone, only on ourselves. But Ukraine won’t suffer because of this.”

PROSPECTS FOR JOINING THE FAR ABROAD

If Ukraine joins NATO, it will become a safer country and Russia will no longer be worried about its unreliability. In what way does Ukraine’s membership in NATO threaten Russia?

“We are not threatened by anyone or anything. NATO does not threaten us. Where did you get the idea that Ukraine’s membership in NATO can be a threat to us? NATO does not pose any threat to us. It is all about something else. We are more concerned about economic ties. I will put it more simply: we in Russia do not want Ukraine to move from the near abroad to the far abroad. And Ukraine should be more concerned about this than Russia.”

Russia has excellent relations with such NATO countries as France and Germany. Why should Russian-Ukrainian relations worsen after Ukraine joins NATO?

“It all depends on economic relations. They cannot remain as they were. NATO is a military bloc. In the event of membership we cannot cooperate in all spheres as openly and with such trust as now. Why? Because then a country falls under other parameters.”

Why is it possible for Russia to cooperate closely with NATO, even though its parameters do not allow it to join NATO?

“We are not going to join anyone. We are not joining anything at all.”

What about Russia’s relations with Ukraine? In our opinion, these relations are as follows: Russia considers the very things it wants for itself as undesirable for Ukraine. If Ukraine follows its own criteria, wants to join NATO, and the work among the population of the country, aimed at explaining that this is not so frightening, turns out to be positive, will Russia object even then?

“We do not object even now. We cannot tell you not to join NATO. And we cannot give you orders. If they accept you, go ahead and join. But at the same time we are pointing out that our relations will not be the same as now. Again I repeat: we don’t want Ukraine to move from the near abroad to the far abroad. You may understand this as you like. Look at everything together and make a decision. This will create more problems for you than for us. We are simply saying that we are not offering you anything else. If they accept you into the EU, go ahead and join. We believe that this is very good. But they are assuring you that in the best-case scenario they will accept you in 20 years. So the time will come and you will join the EU. But we are of a different opinion. And now your own government says that the European Union needs to be created here in Ukraine. But first the living standard here needs to be raised. And only then can there be talk of joining something. Go ahead and join, but then we will have somewhat different relations. That’s all. There will be relations like those we have with Germany and France.”

Very nice relations.

“But not the same as with Ukraine.”