You're reading: Antifreeze

A Freudian slip in last week's Post editorial leads Rudnitsky to contemplate Western visa policy vis-a-vis Ukraine

ve in Mexico, but for the most part, he has been completely debunked. Even contemporary psychoanalysts, who credit him with coming up with the discipline, dismiss his writings as the rantings of a paranoiac dying for one more taste of his mother's milk.

Still, he was onto something with the whole slip thing. We all come out with statements that, even if we mean them, are not appropriate. A slip of the tongue, momentary lapse of reason, forgetting oneself. These embarrassing moments of truth slip off all of our tongues sometimes.

However, very rarely do such slips occur in print. That's why we have editors. They prevent us from writing statements that sting too much. They keep us from alienating the readership. They keep the subtext submerged.

But when the editors do the writing, slips sometimes get through. Take the following example that ran in last week's editorial: “Neither the West nor Ukraine has anything to gain by allowing Ukrainians free access to Western countries.”

This week there is a clarification disowning the above statement and claiming that we didn't mean it. Oops. It was an innocent screw up, just look at our past editorials for proof that we really don't believe what we wrote. Things are sometimes missed on deadline. Honest.

I don't think it's quite that easy. It didn't just come out of the blue. Somewhere, deep in most Westerners' subconscious, lies the belief that Ukrainians really shouldn't be allowed into the West.

Last week's editorial, because of an oversight, publicly admitted this bias. Evidence of Westerners' superiority complex is everywhere, from the infamous pay gap to the outrageous visa application process that Ukrainians must endure.

Even if the editorial read “visa-free access,” like it was supposed to, it was ridiculous. Of course Ukraine has something to gain from free access to the West. Cross-border trade would pick up. Those who can afford vacations to the West would be able to do so without enduring the dehumanizing experience of applying for a visa here, or fear an unexplained, arbitrary rejection. Poor folk in Donbass would be able to immigrate and find better-paying jobs abroad. Sure they would be scrubbing dishes and other such glamorous work, but it's better than mining. Money would be wired home. Emigration from poor countries helps ease the government's burden, as long as it is poor folk leaving and not middle class programmers. Ukraine would move closer to Europe.

While saying that “visa-free” wouldn't benefit Ukraine is stupid, at least it isn't offensive. The Post's Freudian slip, however, crossed the line. It admitted to a very fundamental hypocrisy that permeates the relationship between the West and Ukraine. It goes something like this:

The West, introducing civilization in the form of McDonald's and Cadbury, has infinite wisdom to impart on backward Ukraine. It knows what is best for the economy, for the culture and for the government. When democratically elected leaders here do not tow the party line, they should be viewed as throwbacks and ignored. When pro-Western leaders resort to undemocratic methods, it doesn't matter because we can work with them. Ukraine, for its part, has nothing to offer and should play a minimal role in formulating the prescription we offer. After all, we are only here to help. We know best. It certainly isn't about creating favorable opportunities for Western companies.

Such logic, while usually kept on the down low, is no secret. It is visible between the tines. Many Ukrainians complain about the West's condescending attitude toward Ukraine. But their complaints are dismissed.

We are the ones with the medicine. And just because a slip once in a while exposes our prejudices, it doesn't mean that we can't go back to living the lie about partnerships. Repressing the truth from ourselves isn't that hard. Hey, maybe Freud was right about that denial thing, too.