Where is our strength?

One of the major problems of Ukraine’s current political elite is its inability to accumulate and protect the interests of Ukrainian citizens. The consequences include public distrust of the people who wield power; these people appear to be constantly losing the kind of energy they must have to function as full-fledged politicians on a nationwide scope. Therefore, without this strength, they have to rely on other supports — the oligarchs, money, and certain corporate quarters — but not the people. Hence their petty politicking, when one doesn’t give a hoot about the interests of the states and cares only about one’s own resources, ratings, family, bank account, you name it.

The Ukrainian intelligentsia’s recent appeal to the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum, urging them to convene an international conference to ensure Ukraine’s national security guarantees is partial proof of this. Without a doubt, the guarantors should be reminded of their commitments, but this must be based on a previous request of help and supported by the Ukrainian people, otherwise any steps taken in this direction will look unconvincing to the international community of nations.

There is interesting data, courtesy of a poll carried out in the US and EU, when the Ukrainian intelligentsia asked their leadership’s political opinion — I mean the 2009 Transatlantic Trends Survey done by the German Marshall Fund (US) and the Compagnia di San Paolo (Italy). According to the Korespondent, the findings read that “Moscow’s behavior with regard to its neighbors causes public concern among the Alliance member countries… The residents of the Netherlands appear to be most concerned (78%), as are the residents of the United States (78%). The Bulgarians seem less concerned (40%)… Compared to 2008, the number of citizens concerned [about Moscow’s conduct] has increased, except in Poland.”

The findings of this survey read that most of the respondents supported national security aid for Ukraine and Georgia on the part of the European Union, NATO, and the United States. “Seven out of every ten Europeans (70%) spoke for EU aid in the security domain due the newly founded democracies of Ukraine and Georgia. Most Americans (62%) believed that Washington should take similar measures. Most respondents in the NATO member countries ( 62% in EU and Turkey) and 66% Americans spoke for NATO support. This poll involved at least a thousand respondents of both sexes in every country, aged 18 and over, with 3% sample error rate.

And so we know the public stand taken by the United States and European countries. With time we will know [our] government’s response. On the other hand, do we actually have to wait for this aid to come? Of course not. We have to rely on our own resources, for the old adage about the best man taking all of it, including respect, remains true. Ukraine’s strength is in its people.

The Day asked its experts for comment on the Ukrainian intelligentsia’s message: Is it that you feel wary about Russia? Has the Ukrainian political leadership and intelligentsia sough enough support from the people? What kind of response is to be expected from the guarantor countries?

COMMENTS

Oleksandr SUSHKO, director of the Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine:

“I was one of those who sent this message. As for Medvedev’s statement, it was among the preconditions for forwarding this message to the guarantor countries; his statement has clauses that testify to the Russian Federation being prepared to use force against Ukraine, unless the latter acts in accordance with Russia’s requirements. This threat can materialize at any moment, where and when chosen by the Russian side.

“We will not attempt a hot-air session, trying to prognosticate Russia’s military actions. We, however, must assume the possibility of violent provocations aimed at leading the situation to the no-return point, primarily in the Crimea. There is the possibility of compromising the Ukrainian side — accusing it of inciting some acts of violence. Such actions are hardly predictable, although there are groups of extremists getting increasingly active in the Crimea, waving Russian flags and being perfectly capable of using acts of violence against the officers and men of the Russian Fleet deployed there, thus providing sufficient grounds for [Russia’s] retaliatory response in the Crimea. This likelihood cannot be ruled out in the context of Russian President Medvedev’s statements — and this is specific, technical, view of the situation.

“We’re mostly concerned about Russia publicly declaring that it does not recognize Ukraine’s right to conduct its independent foreign and domestic policies. It is thus an attempt is being made to impose on the rest of the world the theory of limited sovereignty for the countries bordering on Russia. These countries are supposed to count on Russia’s “loyal” attitude toward their formal independent status only if they coordinate their domestic and foreign policies with Moscow. If such policies are not coordinated with Russia, the Russians may revise the existing frontiers, the way they did in Georgia. Now this is what causes the biggest concern. The point is not what provocative acts will be committed, or when. The important thing is that the proverbial Rubicon has been crossed, and that the resulting trends are unnerving.

“What should be done is discuss the situation that has developed between Ukraine and Russia on a broader scale, involving the guarantor and other influential countries, as well as international organizations. These issues should be on the agenda of such organizations, so as to prevent the threat of destabilization in Eastern Europe, caused by the Russian Federation’s behavior. Anyway, at this stage it would suffice to attract international public opinion to what is happening [between Ukraine and Russia]. Russia should receive a loud and clear signal warning it against interfering into Ukraine’s internal affairs. Afterward it would be possible to broach other long-term subjects dealing with the architecture of [national] security.”

Oleh SANZHEREVSKY, Ph.D. (History) director, Euro-Atlantic Study Center, t. Rivne:

“Actually, little if anything can be expected by way of response from the guarantor countries, where the Ukrainian intellectuals addressed their message. The thing is that the document they signed has no legal strength. It is a memorandum — in other words, an instrument of intentions. Under the circumstances, addressing these countries is like fighting windmills, for what we actually have is a virtual guarantee. When it comes to national interests, one ought to bear in mind that Ukraine became a nuclear-free country of its own free will. During that situation the government failed to carry out its duty of protecting the interests of its citizens; instead, it made concessions for the benefit of other countries. There is a different situation now in India, Pakistan, and Israel; these countries refused the nuclear-free status, and there is no way any international community can change this situation.

“In the situation that has developed with regard to Russia’s statements and actions, the Ukrainian intelligentsia made the right decision appealing to the Budapest Memorandum guarantor countries. Still, this move is not effective enough. After all, the guarantor countries see Ukraine divided into the spheres of influence. Ukraine could secure its national interests by having its own adequately equipped and trained armed forces. What we have now is anything but a combat-worthy army, what with the adverse effects of the economic and political situation. Well, you can guess the consequences.

“On the other hand, there is hardly any threat from the Russian Federation, not today. The thing is that almost all the developed countries have legislation allowing use of armed forces abroad. Even if this bill wasn’t passed, it wouldn’t mean that no armed forces would be used anyway. As for Russia’s statements, I would regard them as the information component of a campaign aimed at influencing Ukraine’s domestic [political] process.”

Volodymyr SMOTRYTEL, Merited Artist of Ukraine, Khmelnytsky:

The message the Ukrainian intellectuals addressed to the guarantor countries of the Budapest Memorandum was a step that had to be taken. Keeping mum, the way our political elite does it, can only aggravate our relations with Russia, strained as they are. It is very important to respond to any manifestations of Great Russia imperial chauvinism, for we are witness to a growing scope of encroachments on our national statehood. If the human organism does not respond to a virus, this is a sure sign of death. Therefore, the stand taken by the Ukrainian political elite is, above all, proof of the viability of this organism. The Kremlin’s aggressive act signifies the decay and ultimate death of the empire. Of course, any such process on the political map of the world can result in combat operations; here we are faced with a clear and apparent danger. Ukraine, nevertheless, must reaffirm its national independence in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. I am convinced that, in the event of any military threat, the Ukrainian nation will rise in arms to defend its native land. We can only be saved by national unity.”

Andrii DENYSENKO, coordinator, non-profit organization Tsyvilny aktyv Dnipra (Dnipro Civic Assets), Dnipropetrovsk:

“I think that the authors of this message — members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia — had a poor idea about the realities of international life. Their message is like the proverbial voice crying out in the wilderness. From my personal point of view, none of the guarantor countries wishes to get involved in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, least of all keep any of the promises that were made when Ukraine rid itself of all nuclear weapons. Russia obviously wants to incite a public debate in Ukraine, concerning its relations with Russia, prior to the presidential campaign, for this would allow to lead the Ukrainian public opinion in the right direction [for Moscow]. However, I would suggest an asymmetric response, by consolidating Ukrainian society from within. We must focus on the economic, financial, and social problems that pose the main threat to Ukraine. We have this threat within rather than without, considering that Russia is precisely as dangerous to Ukraine as its instability. If and when we can establish law and order here, we will fear no foe.”

Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA, director, Institute of Foreign Policy at the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine, under aegis of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine:

“The Russian Federation actually threatens Ukraine’s national security. Ukraine will receive no effective guarantees against it, least of all from an international conference or from the Budapest Memorandum signatories. NATO membership could be the only guarantee. The message the Ukrainian intellectuals addressed to the international community of nations is meant to alter the latter’s attitude and make these countries ponder the consequences of Russia’s revanchist policy.

“As for the Ukrainian people in general, the absence of such appeals is understandable because our society has not been brought to comprehend the necessity of unity. Instead, we have all those political ‘vectors’ as practiced by Ukraine’s various regions, so there is little likelihood of support from the entire people of Ukraine. I don’t expect any kind of response to this message from the guarantor countries. What we should do is draw the international public attention — and that of the Ukrainian public — to the hazardous situation that has developed in Ukraine after 18 years of national independence.”

Liudmyla ZHUKOVYCH, Valerii KOSTIUKEVYCH, Vadym RYZHOV, The Day; Yulia ROSTOTSKA, Khmelnytsky; Oleh ADAMOVYCH, Kryvy Rih; Tetiana KUSHNIR, Rivne; Tetiana KOZYREVA