“The Fall of the West” and “the Russian matrix” (Continued)

(Continued from previous issue)

“WE HAVE NOT COME ANY CLOSER TO TRANSFORMATION, DESPITE HAVING TRIED FOR TWO DECADES”

Tetiana MATSKEVYCH, Ivan Franko National University (Lviv): In one of your speeches you said that we are experiencing one of the greatest civilization disasters: the failure of Russian transformation. Which factors do you think have contributed to this failure, and what consequences can be expected after the possible breakdown of Putin’s system?

L.Sh.: “We have not come any closer to the real, non-illusory transformation, despite having tried to find our vector for 20 years now. The source of the trouble? First of all, it is the wrong starting point. We took the collapse of the USSR as the start of democratization. Meanwhile, this collapse turned out to be nothing more than a form of surviving for the empire, a means of reproducing autocracy. The fact that Russia’s liberals and democrats failed to offer an alternative which would guarantee the liquidation of autocratic rule, has also played a role. Conversely, the liberals and democrats staked on Boris Yeltsin’s autocratic regime.

“We should also keep in mind that Russia is a nuclear state with an unbounded lust for statehood. Russia is member of the UN Security Council and still remains one of the pillars of the world order which has existed since the Second World War. Not all existing democratization models are suitable for transforming a nuclear state. Maybe we will have to find our own model.

“Another barrier keeping us in a historical cul-de-sac is the old militarization tradition. The Kremlin resorts to it every time it begins to feel insecure. What should be done to create new foundations or preconditions for change? We, in Russia, must come to an understanding that the country and society cannot survive and develop in a normal way under autocracy, this legacy from the past centuries. In no civilized country can society and person be fully subordinated to the government. Both our society and its elites should realize this simple fact of contemporary life. And it is only crisis that can stimulate such realization. Only crisis can make us ponder over the country’s future. And only crisis can force us to create a real alternative to autocracy, not by searching for a new Leader-Savior, but by creating a law-governed state. Of course, crisis is a heavy condition and can cause the patient’s death.”

“THE RUSSIAN POLITICAL MENTALITY DERIVES FROM THE MONGOL HORDE RATHER THAN FROM BYZANTIUM”

Iryna LAZURKEVYCH, Ivan Franko National University (Lviv): In his article “Russia to Become a Different Europe” Alexander Rahr defines Russia as a successor to Byzantium, thus usurping the place which historically belongs to Ukraine. Why do you think Russia continues “stealing” Ukraine’s historical past?

L.Sh.: “To clearly formulate my answer I must use my friend Larysa Ivshyna’s book from The Day’s Library. I mean Dvi Rusi, with compelling speculations on the subject. Now I am going to play a Salieri variation on Mozart’s theme. Speaking of Alexander Rahr, I cannot say that I am a supporter of his conceptions. He will find much more fans among the Kremlin propagandists. As far as his thesis about Russia as a successor to Byzantium goes, it is very popular in Russia, and has even become a propagandist cliche used for a multitude of goals, from giving scholarly airs to a debate to substantiating Russia’s claim on Ukraine, albeit illusory.

“Russia has indeed been influenced by Byzantium when it comes to the Orthodox Church. But the impact of the Golden Horde is much stronger and it has not expired, not even now. This influence permeates everything, from the state model to state and society relations to the tradition of subordination in our society. From Byzantium Russia inherited the glamour, the purple, the lobby, and the impotent bureaucracy.

“When it comes to why the Russian political class will never accept the loss of Kyiv, a question arises: why did Serbians claim (until recently) Kosovo Polje to be the source of their national spirit? Here we tread not only the sphere of the irrational, but also the sphere of myths. I believe this to be something more than just a problem of a decaying empire’s phantom pains, and more than a problem of really existing connections and affinity between the two nations. The matter is far more complex. The equating of Kyivan Rus’ with the Tsardom of Muscovy extends Russia’s contemporary history, makes it richer and links it to Europe’s history. For how could we preserve the myth of ‘the Third Rome’ without Kyivan Rus’, and without Kyiv?”

Larysa IVSHYNA: “That is the source of this blind-end model of the contemporary autocracy and attempts to re-write Ukraine’s history, dissolving it between the successors which became the prototypes of the modern states. As if there had never been anything in between. Muscovy appeared out of nowhere. But where is everything that had existed before that moment? The concept of Kyivan Rus’ as ‘the cradle of three brotherly nations’ was for some time dumped. It was immediately superseded by a new theory: first there was Byzantium, then Muscovy appeared. So this question remains a painful one. But for Ukraine historical self-education is a natural need for every citizen to strengthen their own identity and thus smash all the attempts to usurp it, because we are all perfectly aware of our origins.

“Muscovy killed the only chance for spiritual kinship, when Novgorod was destroyed by Ivan III. One of the reasons was that Martha Boretska and the ruler of Novgorod wanted to receive a blessing from Kyiv. So our Patriarch Filaret was right to say that we in Kyiv celebrate the baptism of Kyivan Rus’. Moscow has very, very little to do with it. However, everything is subordinated to politics and geopolitics.”

Kostiantyn HONCHAROV, Kyiv: This fall Ukraine has a chance to sign the Association Agreement. Given Russia’s efforts in opposing Ukraine’s Membership Association Plan of 2008, what kind of sentiments prevail among the Russian elite today, in the run-up to the Vilnius summit?

L.Sh.: “I am monitoring the movements and sentiments among the Russian elite. But I cannot say that Vilnius, Ukraine, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement are now on the Russian agenda. The Russian political elite is now preoccupied with Putin, with itself, its personal enrichment and summer vacations. Meanwhile, the opposition is busy trying to figure out what happened to it recently and what it has to do tomorrow. That is why other problems, related to the world outside Russia, are of little or no consequence to Russia’s political class and opposition. To a degree, we are a rather provincial, self-oriented nation.

“Maybe it is for the better, if neither the government nor the opposition has any constructive conception of how Russia is supposed to treat Ukraine. Maybe it is better that this problem is marginal for the political class, which is not prepared to think strategically. It would be worse if, at the absence of such a conception, there would be a lively interest. That would result in a disaster! However, I believe that today Ukraine is a hard nut for the Kremlin to crack, and it’s always on the Kremlin’s mind. Obviously, the Kremlin would do anything to keep Ukraine in Russia’s bear-hug, or at least in its shadow.

“However, it is hard to track down clear strategic plans for Ukraine in Russia. There are sentiments and dispositions. Thus, the liberals are sure that both for Russia and Ukraine would be better if Ukraine followed the Euro integration path decidedly.

“But I believe that neither the liberals nor the political class as a whole realize the full extent of signing the Association Agreement for Yanukovych and Ukraine, as well for our mutual relations.”

L.I.: “Let them read Den/The Day then.”

L.Sh.: “Yes, I promote Den in Moscow, the more so that there is a Russian version of the paper.”