"Why does Ukraine need GUUAM?" wonder Russian democrats

"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?"