Ukraine's leading English-language newspaper since 1995

President Victor Yanukovych, despite the “pro-Moscow” label is not going to sell out Ukraine to Russia. (Yaroslav Debelyi) Everything repeats. It seems these days that a nationalist candidate has lost the recent presidential election, and a seemingly faithful pro-Moscow candidate has won. Victor Yushchenko is out, while Victor Yanukovych is in.

This has happened in our history before. In 1994 nationalist Leonid Kravchuk lost the election to pro-Russian Leonid Kuchma.

There are many obvious parallels. At that time Moscow was also irritated with the too-independent policies of Kravchuk. This irritation manifested – among other things – in approval on July 9, 1993, of a resolution by the Russian parliament to grant the Crimean coastal city of Sevastopol the status of a Russian city. On July 20, the United Nations Security Council recognized this move as incompatible with the mutual recognition of borders by the two countries.

Moreover, then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin threatened at a press conference on June 13, 1993, that he would close the oil tap for Ukraine if it becomes too naughty. Kravchuk then told me: “The task to bring [me] down as a person conducting nationalistic policies, undermining the development of the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States], and generally the main person to blame for all complications – this is the refrain in all of the mass media in Russia, in all their organizations in eastern regions. And all of it was planned, it wasn’t accidental.”

Today Russia’s mass media are less influential. But the Kremlin officials do not only threaten, but close the gas tap occasionally, trying to shift the blame to Ukraine. Russia’s president last year created a precedent in communicating with his Ukrainian counterpart through open letters based on propaganda and Kremlin-created myths about the bilateral relations, which looked like a badly concealed intrusion into Ukraine’s domestic affairs.

However, the Kremlin’s disapproval played a marginal role in Yushchenko’s defeat. He lost primarily because he failed to keep his reform promises. Nevertheless, Moscow’s desire and attempts to intervene in Ukraine’s home affairs remains perhaps even stronger than before.

Curiously, the current leaders have behavioral characteristics similar to the previous duo: Golden-mouthed Kravchuk and Yushchenko, who can talk for a long time, and clumsy talkers Kuchma and Yanukovych. Although Kuchma never said Anton Chekhov was a great Ukrainian poet, like Yanukovych did. But in the first months of his presidency, in November 1994, Kuchma asked a journalist at a press conference what “reintegration” was. I guess there is a certain degree of justification for Kuchma then because this was a new word in the nation’s vocabulary.

The ideas about foreign policy expressed by Kuchma in his first days in power could not have been unwelcome by Moscow. On July 19, 1994, in his inaugural speech, the newly elected president said that Ukraine is a part of Eurasian economic and cultural space. “Today, this is the territory where vital national interests of Ukraine are concentrated,” he said. “We have to not just be present in the Commonwealth of Independent States, but learn to actively influence the policies inside the Commonwealth, decisively defend out interest, remembering our partner at the same time.”

Kuchma remembered Western countries in his speech, saying relations with them have to be filled “with new realistic substance,” but named Russia as Ukraine’s strategic partner.

Yanukovych – even before his inauguration – has said a number of things that were like ointment to the souls of the Kremlin top officials. Before the second round of voting, Yanukovych told ICTV channel that the Constitution declares Ukraine as a neutral state, adding that the citizens voted for this status at a referendum on Dec. 1, 1991. Both of these statements are false, but they both work towards destroying the ghost of NATO in Russia-Ukraine relations.

Later in an interview with Russian TV, he said he does not exclude the possibility of the Russian Black Sea Fleet remaining on Ukraine’s territory after the current rent agreement runs out in 2017. This statement contradicts the Constitution that forbids foreign military bases on Ukraine’s land. He also invited the Russians to become co-owners of our gas transit pipelines. He has said that joining NATO is completely off the agenda – a decision Russia had been wanting during all five years of Yushchenko’s presidency. So, it looks at the moment like Russia and Ukraine will join in mutual ecstasy.

But Kuchma’s experience adds plenty of skepticism as to whether it will happen.

Soon after coming to power, Kuchma realized that Moscow has no fascination with his striving for equitable cooperation. In February 1995, Kuchma said that Russia unfairly uses other former Soviet states for its interests.

One of the results of Kuchma’s presidency is a resolution that Ukraine is striving to one day join NATO. We’re only left to wonder how soon we shall hear from Yanukovych’s own mouth about his disappointment with relations with Russia. We know this declaration will come because, despite all Yanukovych, is not so spineless as to give up his own territory to the Big Brother.


Yuriy Lukanov is the author of the book “The Third President: A Political Portrait of Leonid Kuchma.” He can be reached at lukanov@ukr.net.