A recent op-ed in the New York Times by Samuel Charap and
Keith Charden (“Kiev isn’t ready for Europe”, December 20, 2013) should be
taken seriously by those who may disagree with it. At least part of its content
shows valid observations about Ukrainian economics and politics, but there is
room for disagreement with that article’s analysis, logic, and conclusions.
After noting Ukraine president’s backing away from an
association agreement with the European Union and his signing of a range of
economic agreements with Russia, an apparently true statement is made that
seems to be part of a syllogism: “The European and American policy toward
Ukraine — urging it to pursue the path of reforms that
proved so successful in Central Europe
— has reached an impasse”. But
the next sentence sounds like an illogical conclusion or an opinion that is
unsustainable: “This failure stems from a constant misreading of Ukraine by the
West”.
The authors then proceed with what they apparently see as
correct reading: “No Ukrainian government since independence has taken the
necessary steps to reform the country’s economy and political system.
Wealth — generated by graft, by skimming profits off
natural gas imported from Russia, and by seizure of profitable assets — still
lies predominantly in the hands of
government officials, their families, and their oligarchic friends,,,,”.
Is this “reading” correct? Absolutely. But wasn’t this
widely known almost everywhere, from Kyiv to Brussels to Washington? In what
part of the West was there “misreading
of Ukraine”? Perhaps only the authors themselves have been misreading it —
until they found the truth lately. If that’s not so, then what is their
motivation?
And then comes another doozy: “The West must recognize that
Europe cannot integrate Ukraine by opposing itself to Russia”. What is meant by
“Europe opposing Russia” in this case? If, hypothetically, Ukraine prefers
association with Europe rather than with Russia, does that mean that Europe
opposes Russia? Isn’t this stretching it as far as from here to Timbuktu?
Absence of logic in an argument should matter, especially on
pages of The New York Times.
Authors of this op-ed point out that “while protesters in
Kyiv have put on an impressive demonstration of civic engagement, they are not
representative of Ukraine as a whole”. They cite a nationwide 37 percent
favoring Europe and 33 percent leaning towards Russia. But, again, these
numbers have been no secret in Europe.
The article goes on to insist that “these parts of the
country (where majority is leaning towards Russia) are unlikely to support a
European project framed in anti-Russian terms”. But this is a mere rephrasing of “Europe opposing Russia” theme. It is a
phraseology for not allowing Ukraine to escape from Russia’s hegemony.
Speaking of motivation of the authors, consider this
passage: “Throwing the full support of the USA and Europe behind the
opposition’s efforts to oust Ukraine’s elected government seems decidedly
unwise when a legitimate path for changing that government is available in
presidential elections in early 2015”.
A legitimate path? It is this quoted advice for the USA and
Europe that is “decidedly unwise”, because the 2015 presidential election in
Ukraine will be rigged — with 100 percent certainty. Is it really
possible that the authors still have not gotten an accuate reading of Viktor
Yanukovych’s election arsenal?
Questionable is also this assertion: “Without the support of
its (pro-Russian) south and east — which are politically, economically and
demographically dominant — a democratic Ukraine isn’t going anywhere….” Actually, it is more than probable that the
democratic camp would win honest elections in 2015 without majority support
from south-east, and then would set a pro-Ukrainian democratic course, weighted
towards Europe. That’s going somewhere.
Success of that course would require effective
anti-corruption measures and economic reforms, which are intensely resisted mainly
in the “economically dominant” gas-guzzling south east that perpetuates
vulnerability to Russia’s pulling of economic levers. Ukraine, with its
obsolete Donbas industries, is using almost as much gas annually as Germany
does, although its GNP is 19 times smaller than Germany’s.
Reforms are doable, even though the entrenched corruption
has deep roots in that geographic area, going back to organized crime in Soviet
times, which showed itself, after Soviet collapse, in oligarchic gangster
warfare with car bombings and major asset takeovers stretching from Donetsk to
Moscow. This is the heritage that makes “parasitic governance” (in authors’
words) in Ukraine what it is, and which can be properly called the Donbas
empire syndrome.
And so, it is widely understood by now, in Ukraine and in
the West, that Maidan demonstrations represent by far more than an economic
pull towards Europe. That drive is a cultural revolution that has simmered in
Ukraine under the boot of the oligarchs and is fiercely opposed by the Party of
Regions — which in the words of
Yulia Tymoshenko is not a real political
party but a criminal organization with a coercive, authoritarian internal
structure.
Marginalizing Maidan, as the op-ed authors do, by elevating
the importance of “demographically dominant” south and east, is misreading the
growing determination of pro-democracy civic movement to rid Ukraine of criminal authoritarian
governance now dominant in most of the former Soviet Union space.
It is no secret that, in Ukraine, the bedrock of support for
such governance is in the south and east. That’s where the Party of Regions
rolls up a huge vote. It would be naïve
to expect conversion of that area to European worldview any time soon. That’s
why the opposition to the present regime needs to maximize and consolidate its
support where it exists, and continue not to dwell on differences between its
three main parties. What counts the most is that their common goal is regime
change.
If the rightwing of the opposition is
nationalistic and the leftwing is socialistic, more power to them. It wouldn’t
do any harm either (highly impossible) if the communist party in the parliament
showed some pro-Ukrainian verve and broke away from the Yanukovych coalition.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
