By Oleksa PIDLUTSKY, The Day
Well-known Russian political scientist Aleksei Kuzmin visited Kyiv recently.
The Day's Oleksa PIDLUTSKY interviewed him. We cannot agree
completely with the views of our Moscow guest, but they still make it clear
what Russian democratic politicians think about Ukraine, Russia, and their
relationship.
"The presidential campaign is in full swing in Ukraine. Which candidate's
victory do you think would serve the interests of Russia most?"
"First of all, I want to say this is a purely internal affair for Ukraine.
Yet, I think one must proceed from the fact that Russia's interests would
be served to the highest degree by a strong, stable, and rationally-governed
Ukraine. With this in view, the ideal option would be Yevhen Marchuk and
Oleksandr Moroz making it into the runoff. In this case, no matter who
wins in the second round, Russia, as well as Ukraine, would be beneficiaries.
For now there is an urgent necessity of synthesizing what was the best
in the Soviet system with the achievements of world experience. The wave
of innovation that swept over us 13 years ago has also washed away all
the best things we had. We cannot say that Ukraine (or Russia) has begun
to live better than in the 1980s. The economic reforms, supposedly underway
in our countries, have not yet demonstrated anything to anyone.
"The degree of civil supervision over the state is now less than it
was 15 years ago. The Saratov Governor Ayatskov said quite to the point:
'Democracy ends when the ballot is put in the ballot box.' The trouble
is that, over the last few years, the people fated to govern our states
very often did not know just what the state is, nor could they define their
national interests. Their mentality is on the level of a collective farm
manager, secretary of a factory Party committee, or, at best, secretary
of an oblast Party committee. They did not climb all the successive rungs
of the ladder of public administration. It is these shortcomings that are
not typical, in contrast to most of their political rivals, of Marchuk
and Moroz in Ukraine, Yevgeny Primakov in Russia, and Petru Lucinschi in
Moldova.
"Mr. Moroz is pink, but undoubtedly not Left in the classic post-Soviet
sense of the word. Mr. Marchuk, conversely, is by and large a Right-wing
figure. But he, in my opinion, is most of all capable of providing continuity,
i.e., the synthesis I talked about."
"A mirror question: which candidate's victory in the Russian presidential
elections in 2000 would serve the interests of Ukraine most?"
"I think Yevgeny Primakov."
"But Mr. Primakov, when Prime Minister, pursued rather a rigid policy
with respect to CIS countries, Ukraine in particular."
"Mr. Primakov is at least a rational person with a predictable policy
against which you can build a policy of your own. The second best for me
is Grigory Yavlinsky. Primakov and he can think in terms of the state or
at least can begin to. Also quite predictable is Gennady Ziuganov, but
these predictions are unpleasant, to put it mildly. Yuri Luzhkov's victory
would be a genuine disaster for Russia. You can expect from him anything
possible; what is clear is that, under his leadership, the state would
turn into a self-contained and deeply criminalized area. It is too early
to judge Mr. Stepashin. In any case, a premier who does not control the
economic block of his government can hardly be a serious contender for
the top spot."
"Can we say there is forward movement in Ukrainian-Russian relations,
the pet subject of official Moscow and Kyiv?"
"These relations have frozen somewhere very close to the point of departure.
We have dropped interstate economic ties but have not yet created inter-regional
ones. We became too wrapped up in the external attributes of statehood,
customs points, for example. Yes, I know that, according to polls in, say,
Sumy oblast, one customs officer, who draws legal and, what is more, illegal
income maintains an average of seven people with their heads in the trough.
I think similar figures also exist in Kursk oblast. But both countries
would gain much more if their customs officers could not steal. And the
growth in jobs would make up for these cross-border losses. It is already
axiomatic that nobody is waiting to greet Ukraine or Russia in foreign
markets with open arms. Yet, instead of coordinating our foreign economic
policies, we organize mutual rivalry and dumping. Especially indicative
here is the example of tanks: we snatch contracts from each other, thus
cutting the price."
"And who is more guilty here?"
"I think fifty-fifty. But Russia might have shown more wisdom, for it
has inherited from the USSR the majority of its highly-skilled foreign-trade
cadres.
"In the purely political sphere, both countries also lack the idea of
what coordinated behavior is. For instance, why does Ukraine need GUUAM?
Does Ukraine need Georgia? Absolutely not. Uzbekistan? Or Azerbaijan? Hardly.
For Ukraine has already tried to play in alternative gas supplies with
Turkmenistan. It is common knowledge how it ended up. Yes, Uzbekistan can,
in principle, supply gas to Ukraine, but the former is very unlikely (in
contrast with Russia) to remit the latter's debts. From the standpoint
of the division of labor, this association is without prospects. Ukraine
does need Moldova, a neighbor. But bilateral relations are quite sufficient
here. However, GUUAM wields a clearly political spear against the Russian-Belarusian-Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan
nucleus of the CIS (and adjacent Armenia). Ukraine is now under the threat
of being drawn into international conflicts in the Caucasus or involved
in internal Georgian political squabbles. Do you really need this?"






