Little Russian mentality
It became clear right after the signing of the Kharkiv agreements that Kyiv had voluntarily assumed the role of Moscow’s junior partner. In response to the well-founded fears about our territorial integrity, Party of Regions MPs have once again reiterated that this will appease the most aggressive figures in Russia’s capital. One of them, Volodymyr Zubanov, said this in an interview with Den (No. 108, June 23, 2010). But it is common knowledge that appeasement cannot satisfy aggressive desires: on the contrary, it only incites further aggression. Was Hitler appeased after he had signed the Munich Agreement, or Mussolini after the League of Nations had passed fruitless resolutions while the Italian aggression against Ethiopia was taking place? Incidentally, a sharp rebuff drastically cooled the Duce’s ardor. Ukrainian leadership, including its apologists like Mr. Zubanov, has gotten what was to be expected. Moscow Mayor Yurii Luzhkov was not too slow to make another declaration on the Russian character of Sevastopol.
The Moscow city boss is incorrigible: he will not calm down even if you extend the lease on the Black Sea Fleet’s base in the Crimea for a hundred years. He has problems of his own. The Kremlin is clearly beginning to oust him. According to many sources in the Russian corridors of power, the Russian capital’s current mayor has greatly overstayed his welcome. Former heavyweights are shuffling, one by one, off the political stage. The Bashkir satrap stood down recently after obtaining enormous kickbacks after lengthy disputes. The Tatar boss Mintimer Shaimiev had vacated his Kazan office a bit earlier without too much noise. Luzhkov is well aware that shells are landing nearer and nearer, and behaves accordingly. With his eccentric actions he is playing a game of his own with President Dmitry Medvedev. This can explain, to some extent, the harsh tone of his Sevastopol comments. But this is Russian domestic policy. What interests us more are the actions of our leadership, which, according to almost all Moscow-based media, Luzhkov’s statements have put into an awkward position. Is this gra-titude for all the things that Kyiv has done to strengthen good-neighborly relations?
A trifle at first glance: President Viktor Yanukovych personally called Luzhkov to say that he was struck off the list of those barred from entering Ukraine. Why did he do that? Luzhkov does not hold a position of similar rank in his country. If it was just to make him happy, a letter signed by a Foreign Ministry official would have been sufficient. As a result of this minor, at first glance, protocol infraction, we have to swallow undisguised disrespect of our state.
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko spoke at length at one of the latest Yevgeny Kiseliov talk shows and emphasized that there are no longer any no-entry black lists either in Ukraine or in Russia. Everybody can travel anywhere they want if they have enough money. But the truth is the honorable minister was led astray or, in plain words, duped by his Russian counterpart. There may be no such lists in Ukraine, but they exist in Russia. Vasyl Ovsienko, a Kharkiv human rights group’s coordinator and former Soviet prisoner of conscience, was taken off a Moscow-bound train in Briansk and sent back to Ukraine. According to Ukrainian Helsinki Union chairman Yevhen Zakharov, “his name was on the list of those barred from entering the Russian Federation.” Naturally, in the view of Russian authorities, a person who spent 14 years in Soviet prison camps for political reasons poses a threat to the security of this immense country. He may have shaken the foundations at the International Civic Forum in such debates as “Disintegration of the USSR. Pluses and Minuses,” “The Tragedy of the Russian Countryside,” “An Unfinished Story,” “What Kind of Human Rights Movement do we need?” and “The Non-Free World and Culture.” He wanted to tie a memorial ribbon to crosses on the graves of his martyred comrades. It is difficult to say what brought on the wrath of the Russian authorities — the books he carried to the Museum of the History of Political Repressions and Totalitarianism in the village of Kuchino or the ribbon.
Where is the note of protest against all these incidents? For it had been agreed upon that Yury Luzhkov, Konstantin Zatulin, and others were allowed to enter Ukraine — and now this disgrace. We have so far only heard a not-so-clear explanation from Oleh Voloshyn, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Informational Policy Department, that “Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has undoubtedly taken a most serious attitude to Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov’s statement on Se-vastopol.” What is next? There are ample grounds to believe that nothing will follow this burst of hot air. The explanation is quite simple: all the bosses are away on vacation, so there is nobody to make a decision. Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn is ready to cut short his vacation by one day in order to see the Russian Church patriarch in Kyiv, but there is nobody to take adequate measures when our country is being maligned.
Ukrainian powers-that-be cannot do without Russian patterns. But the copy is always worse than the original. Here is the result: they seem to have cut imported gas prices, but still we had to raise them. Why then did they rush to sign the Kharkiv pact? Was it so difficult to assess at least one step forward in a clear situation? As Talleyrand once said, “c’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute” — it is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
And even when President Viktor Yushchenko was trying to follow an independent course, the result was still the same — a mirror reflection of the previous, pro-Russian, model. We will achieve nothing if we adhere to the principle “what is perpendicular to one neighbor is parallel to another.” We eventually understood. We practically fell out with Russia but failed to achieve much with Europe and the US.
We must be friends with Russia as well as, incidentally, other neighbors. There is no alternative to this, but there is an important condition: one should be aware of long-term national interests rather than ones based on partisan considerations and the sole desire to win the next elections and remain in power.
It is the elite that is responsible for shaping this country’s strategic course in both foreign and domestic policies. But they have not even reached the level of being aware of this necessity. Hence the chronic disease of Little Russian mentality —with respect to the West as well as Russia. We feel that we were of smaller stature. We are bending our knees and are afraid of our own shadow. Someone should be put in his proper place so that he dares not think, let alone speak, about encroaching on our land. But, God forbid, a peremptory cry may suddenly come from a neighboring capital! Is it not high time to stand up and stop trembling? Only then will our neighbors respect us. And, until then, all we can do is wait.
