Dialogue of mirrors

Dialogue of mirrors
Notes on the week's progress, moving to the editor's column


Publication date: August 1, 2001

And the second ones broke loose and began to eagerly divide Ukraine . The authors can be understood: it’s nice to suddenly feel like “America,” at least “virtually.” After all, it is the Americans (according to common media clichés, and perhaps in reality) who dream of the division of Russia.

But does Russia dream - not at the everyday level, but at the level of decision-makers - about the division of Ukraine? Hardly. Rather, we are talking about establishing relations similar to the Russian-Belarusian ones (and not necessarily formalized as some kind of confederal union). The instability, “temporariness,” and “transitional nature” of Russian-Belarusian relations are just appearances. Lukashenko found an ideal form of relations - for himself and for the Kremlin - in which he could sell Belarusian refrigerators to Russia and not send Belarusian soldiers to Chechnya .

Kuchma seems to be striving for the same thing. Moreover, the problems of Ukraine are in all respects similar to the problems of Russia (and Belarus). External national unity hides contradictions between residents of different regions - deep enough to prevent the emergence of a single national idea ("Russian" in the case of Russia - and "Ukrainian" in the case of Ukraine). Clan “oligarchic” fragmentation , at the journalistic level likened to feudal fragmentation, turns state power into a superstructure (if not to say a “plaster”) on the massive but shaky foundation of corporate domination. Ukraine, like Russia, needs to cement this foundation, to build a strong state: merchants (both ours and Ukrainian) must finally remember that they constitute the third estate, and not the first. Finally, the foreign policy position of Ukraine is determined primarily by the fact that modern Ukraine is as much a part of the former Russian Soviet Socialist Empire as modern Russia. One can hardly talk here about a “world conspiracy” to destroy Russia, but playing on other people’s contradictions is a normal practice in international relations. America plays on intra-European contradictions, Great Britain plays on the contradictions between continental Europe and America, China plays on the contradictions between America and Russia, Russia plays on the contradictions between America and China... And if, after all, a “conspiracy” exists, it is directed he goes to Ukraine - just like to Russia.

But this is, of course, not about opposing some kind of conspiracy, but about restoring imperial power while maintaining the sovereignty of post-Soviet states. Ukrainian statehood seems absurd only at the profane level, at the level of an anecdote . At the level of current politics, Ukrainian statehood is quite real and full-fledged. Poland and Finland, whose independence has long been unquestioned at a profane level, at one time looked as “strange” as sovereign states as Ukraine or Kazakhstan look today.

Ukrainian journalism floats ideas about the positiveness of the “Finnish experience” for Ukraine - with an emphasis on the “neutrality” of Finland. But in fact, the pro-Soviet policy of Finland (after the war and until the collapse of the USSR) is an open secret. This pro-Soviet policy in no way harmed Finnish sovereignty.

It can be assumed that talk about the “Finnish experience” in the Ukrainian media is part of a state PR campaign. But it is possible that this is just a manifestation of journalistic intuition. The West is trying to invest money in Ukraine - with an obvious goal, which was outlined by Brzezinski. Why give up money? You can hold “partnership” NATO exercises, you can make a fuss around Sevastopol (an iconic city due to several wars) - but at the same time quietly maintain the remaining Russian military bases in Crimea. Perhaps Kuchma wants to follow not the Belarusian, but rather the Finnish path. In any case, this path leads to Russia - but not to Russia. Both Ukrainian everyday nationalism and Russian everyday imperialism are obstacles on the way. Both of these ideas are unproductive because they do not take into account the main thing: Ukraine is a “double” of Russia, and Russia is a “double” of Ukraine. For pragmatic reasons, our countries must act together - both in foreign policy and in solving internal (completely identical) problems. However, the “reunification” of Ukraine with Russia under the leadership of Russia is the same dangerous utopia as the annexation of Russia to “Kievan Rus.”

Kirill Yakimets