Vitalii Portnykov: Ukraine’s development is merely a matter of time

The journalist Vitalii Portnykov is one of the outstanding representatives of the Ukrainian media, as well the Russian ones, where he’s been published since the late 1980s. His laconic, sarcastic and occasionally even provocative style appeals to intelligent audiencies. The Day offers an interview with Vitalii PORTNYKOV on the peculiarities of Ukrainian and Russian media, freedom of speech in both countries, the Ukrainian statehood, presidential election 2010, and a lot of other issues.

— Vitalii, you’ve long worked in the media both in Russia and Ukraine. How would you describe the modern Ukrainian and Russian information spaces?

“ In fact, it’s a true challenge, because Ukraine and Russia share a common information space. Speaking of electronic media I should admit that there is not much original product of this type on Ukrainian TV channels. We serve our audience either a lot of Russian programs or Russian formats. In their turn, Russian channels copy international formats. In this particular respect the world has become absolutely globalized over the past decade. That is why I think there is no such thing as individual television – there only exists a certain degree of creativity in reproducing this or another format, for the realization of which a mere ability to exactly fit into the TV canons will suffice.

“Speaking of the creative component of journalism, in Russia the situation is somewhat better than in Ukraine. No wonder, though, because the big TV traditions in Russia are older than in this country. But when it comes to the political component of the information space, the situation there will be absolutely different. It’s determined by the social climate and not by TV. In this case journalism is merely a mirror of this social climate. No doubt that if the Russian media had a chance to work like their Ukrainian colleagues do, they would also be able to do everything we can see in Ukraine today. In the long run, the present-day talk shows came to Ukraine from Russia, where they appeared exactly in Putin’s epoch and not in the times of his predecessors.”

— There has recently been a session of Valdai International Discussion Club where Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said he didn’t rule out his third presidency in 2012. How well can the international community see and appraise what’s going on in Russia?

“I don’t think they can see much, leave alone appraise. The true Russian politics is happening far from the minds of the political scientists. Even when Vladimir Putin is speaking truth unto them, they will not see or hear it. For instance, Putin once said that he and Medvedev would arrange as to which of them is going to run for President in the 2012 election, and everyone heard that. But apart from this, he said also that neither he nor Medvedev had any political ambitions. Everyone took this as coquetry, but, in fact, Putin was speaking the truth.

“We witnessed the development of the process of continuity of power in 2008. It’s absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin didn’t need to make Dmitrii Medvedev his successor. Just as the question was being settled not by Putin, but by a certain group of individuals connected with state power and controlling it, so the next presidential election in Russia will be determined not by Putin’s or Medvedev’s decision but by those individuals’.

From the viewpoint of formal political logic, it would be correct if Putin became President, because he’s got every right to it. Moreover, and it’s the main factor, he’s got the support. But as the individuals who select the presidential candidate are driven by resource motives, and not by the political ones, virtually anyone can become the next President of Russia. And neither Putin nor Medvedev will show any emotion because they are mere functionaries who are supposed to preserve and increase the capitals. You have to hand it to them, they are able to handle it perfectly well .”

— That is, the much-spoken rivalry between Putin and Medvedev is nothing but a myth?

“The rivalry between Putin and Medvedev is merely an attempt to prove the individuals, who determine the presidential candidate, that they had better place a stake on this or another figure.”

— Speaking of the level of mutual awareness: Ukrainians know much more about Russia than Russians do about Ukraine. People in this country are interested virtually in all social and political processes which take place in Russia. Moreover, the Ukrainian public are competent in many of them, which can’t be said of the Russians. What do you think can explain the Russians’ apathy towards the developments in Ukraine, and what role do the Russian media play in this process?

“I don’t think so, because both the Ukrainian and Russian audiences know just as much as they will. What are their sources of information? The same Russian channels, providing a totally distorted image of what is going on in Ukraine, and disconnected stories by Ukrainian journalists, who also have a rather dim view of what is going on in Russia.

“Here is a vivid example: flying home from Moscow, I met a young couple from Kyiv, and they were telling me how fast Russia was gaining momentum and how fine things were there. That is, the people in Kyiv either watch Russian channels or use the information from their Moscow relatives and don’t care for anything else.

“But then, there is another aspect to this problem: when Russia is pictured as the foe who is going to attack Ukraine right tomorrow. That is to say that an inadequate image of each other is characteristic of both Ukraine and Russia. There is no difference: both Ukrainian and Russian societies have about the same degree of real, and not illusionary, influence on the authorities.

“Another important aspect common for both nations is the degree of responsibility for what is going on in your country. But in this sense an individual doesn’t need any objective information, because he only needs whatever information fits in with his stereotypes. “

— Then how can you explain the results of an opinion poll showing 56 per cent Russians having a negative view of Ukraine and 93 per cent Ukrainians with a positive view of Russia?

“An explanation can be that the Russian media in general represent a more negative view of Ukraine than the Ukrainian media do of Russia. Besides, in certain regions of Ukraine the prestige of the Russian media is very high, while in Russia the Ukrainian media are not represented at all, that is why the Russian audience has to depend exclusively on home channels and propaganda.

“On the other hand, what is going on in Ukrainian-Russian relations today, can be qualified as at least irresponsibility of the elites in power. Due to the sudden financial controversies, they are trying to clash the two nations.”

— The election campaign, which has virtually been launched in Ukraine, promises to get very hot. But the heat can go up, if we recall the experiences of the presidential election-2004, when Russia openly stood up for one of the candidates. How powerful do you think is the influence of the Russian authorities and media going to be in this campaign and what effect it can have on the Ukrainian voters’ preferences?

“I don’t think there’s going to be another 2004. Russia then backed one of the presidential candidates, but it was a model, not personality, that it backed. For the Russian political leadership it was absolutely obvious and necessary that in all the post-Soviet space the pattern of succession of power be preserved. Russia didn’t in the least want to proliferate a model of the authorities losing an election and being in the Opposition. This is exactly why Russia supported Viktor Yanukovych; besides, the Russian party demanded that he secure Russian interests.

“For what is the present-day Russian elite like? Due to various reasons – their Soviet past, their ignorance – they believe that Russia is the only real state on the post-Soviet map. That is why every one, in their opinion, should defend Russian national interests. The rest is but settings.

“But it has turned out that such a course is impossible in Ukraine, so the Russian elite is ‘disappointed’ about all Ukrainian candidates. Because of this, I don’t think that in this campaign Russia is going to play a special role. In all these years the Russian political elite has seen that each Ukrainian politician first tries to defend the Ukrainian interests and then, the Russian. In this sense neither Yulia Tymoshenko, nor Viktor Yanukovych, nor anyone else will suit it. That is why nowadays Russia has to cooperate with each of them, hoping for the possibility of promoting Russian interests on the level of the new President of Ukraine.”

— So you think that if Yanukovych is elected President, he will promote Ukrainian interests? What about his recent pro-Russian declarations, then?

“Yanukovych’s declarations are aimed at a certain group of voters with pro-Russian feelings. And it is thanks to Viktor Yushchenko that these voters have come to clearly identify with Russia, the Russian language and a desire to oppose Ukrainization. Thanks to the winners and losers of the 2004 election, another ‘Ukrainian political nation’ has appeared which may be labeled conventionally as ‘new Russian nation’. It didn’t exist before 2004.”

— Is there any possibility for a third candidate to intervene in the situation?

“No, unless there are considerable shocks to the economy.”

— You are very pessimistic in describing the realities of the Ukrainian politics...

“I am not pessimistic about the Ukrainian statehood. Ukraine’s development is merely a matter of time, for we differ dramatically from, let’s say, Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary, which also used to belong to the so-called socialist camp – and now they are the EU and NATO members. But we didn’t use to just belong to the socialist camp, we belonged to the Soviet Union proper, and for seventy years at that. This is what makes us different from the Baltic states which also used to have their own statehood prior to their annexation by the USSR. All these factors have been kept in the historical memory of those nations. That is why back in1991 the restoration of statehood in the Baltic states was championed by the vast majority of people there.

“But there has been nothing of this kind in the historical memory of the Ukrainians. The period of the Ukrainian People’s Republic seems distant, chaotic and obscure for many of our contemporaries. Besieds, we have to realize that the Ukrainian nation was not a nation in the strict sense of the word. The majority of people did not envisage the possibility of creating an independent Ukrainian state. During one year Ukrainians had two referendums in which they voted for opposite tendencies in the national policy. So we have to understand that a nation without any clear landmarks will encounter difficulties in its development. Today, we are all participants in this complicated process.”