Chris Doss The Russia Journal ----------------------------
Itogi, 25.03.002 18:33 (Reprinted in Ukrainska Pravda) http://www.pravda.com.ua/?20325-6-new
Linked by Geography The realistic America for Ukraine, as for the other countries of the CIS, remains Russia. Leonid Radzikhovsky
The most important event of March in foreign politics for Russia is the elections in Ukraine. Moscow is emphasizing this in all kinds of ways, even adding a soundtrack to the list of Ukrainian parties with which Russia sympathizes: the pro-presidential bloc "For a United Ukraine," the Ukrainian Communist Party, and the Social-Democrats. The opponents are also designated: the rightists of Viktor Yushchenko.
Moscow's calculation is correct. Some, of course, might shout about interference in internal affairs, but for the majority of voters and for the Ukrainian elite the more important thing is not these shouts, but the opinion of Moscow. And, doubtlessly, this opinion plays an enormous role. However, all of these calculations are already today definitively showing that it is precisely the three parties friendly to Moscow that together will take the majority of places in the Rada. True, they do not form any kind of united block, but rather the opposite. And they will continue to mercilessly fight with each other. But at least in relation to Russia, they will all preserve their loyalty to a known degree.
It is curious, of course, that the rightist-liberal leadership of Russia is supporting the Ukrainian left against the Ukrainian right- liberals. Incidentally, the same situation obtains in relation to many other countries of the CIS. But this is simple to explain: the still not overcome syndrome of 1991. At that time the bourgeoisie parties in the surrounding republics of the USSR were spelled with a hyphen. And the were correctly spelled: they were the parties that were anti-Soviet on all fronts. That is, they stood equally against the Soviet social- economic system, against the united USSR state itself, and for national independence. It is precisely this last point of their program that was most understandable, as behind it stood the history and blood of various "forest brotherhoods," "Banderists," "basmachis" and other "dashniki". Neither the voters of these parties nor their leaders themselves knew what liberalism was, and they did not want to know. But they knew very well (and most importantly, they could feel) what the collapse of Empire meant. This was a gut-level feeling: here there merged the ethnic sense of insult and the sacred belief that once we stop feeding Moscow, and we will feast in freedom! Residents of Russia dreamed in a similar way - that as soon as we stop feeding these ethnics, we'll also feast!
Life showed who was correct (or, more exactly, who was less wrong). If one compares the standard of living in the Republics of the USSR and the CIS, then the ratio has sharply changed. Citizens of the Russian Soviet Republic traditionally lived more poorly than residents of the Transcaucasus or the breadbasket of Ukraine, and with our little Euro- Baltics there was nothing to compare We know that after the collapse of the USSR everything turned around: however poorly we in Russia lived, our standard of life was much higher than in Georgia (not to speak even of fear), and than in Ukraine. Thus Russia lost less from the collapse of the USSR than the other republics. This is not surprising: USSR or no USSR, all of the oil, gas, diamonds, forests and aluminum remained with us! Such is geography and geology. In this same way geography dictates another law: countries on the periphery under any degree of political independence and in any relationship with Russia are simply destined to live at the expense of the transit of gas, oil and metal from Russia to the West, and of manufactured goods from the West to Russia. Thus lives the brotherly Belarus, the eternally cautious Baltics, and the complex (the mysterious Slavic soul!) Ukraine. And their exports (as from all countries of the CIS) go primarily to Russia. That is, their dollars have nowhere to go, and are "printed" for Russia. Incidentally, this also applies to many other countries of the former socialist camp, such as to Poland. Yes, what geography binds no politicians can unbind.
This also fully applies to all of the political parties of the CIS countries.
Of course, the leftist parties, which in reality are not at all leftist in the European sense of the word, but simply parties of Soviet fundamentalists, parties of "old songs about the most important thing," naturally favor strengthening ties with Russia. The fact that Russia is capitalist does not bother their typical voter. He does not know or understand such finer points. The main thing is - with Russia! The rightist parties, however, which throughout the CIS have remained not so much bourgeoisie as nationalist, in reality cannot contrast relations with Russia to anything. The Good America is in their dreams. But Russia is next door. Of course, Yushchenko has a pro-American orientation. And here is the bad luck: America does not have a pro- Yushchenko orientation. America and Ukraine are not economically linked in the slightest! Yushchenko's supporters are not able to speak "American," but they all know Russian! A Ukrainian president, let alone a minister or an artist, will never be received in America on the same leve; as he would be received in Moscow.
So whoever leads in the Rada, be it Yushchenko, Simonenko or somebody else, neither the georgraphy, nor the economy, nor the culture of Ukraine will be able to change this. But while they do not change, the most important thing will also not change: the real America for Ukraine - as for the other countries of the CIS countries - remains Russia.
(Trans. by Timothy Blauvelt)