Yushchenko played up to Yanukovich with Bandera

Scientific director of School of Political Analytics under National University “Kiev-Mogilev Academy” Alexey Vasilievich Garan answers to questions of Internet portal “The World and We”.

- What are the main problems and obstacles do you see in development of relations between Russia and Ukraine, how did its dynamics change during the last time?

Each party expected more from the development of these relations. Yanukovich really made significant give-and-take beginning from problems of Sevastopol, humanitarian problems, adoption of extra-block status of Ukraine, this is what Moscow demanded for long time, and he figured on give-and-take which would be and in economic relations, in price of gas. From the other side, Russia, obviously, figured on freely conducting further economic expansion in Ukraine. I think that Yanukovich understood in any moment that further expansion of interests of Russia, first of all in economic sphere, would be, of course, not in interests of Ukraine, it would weaken his position as president of Ukraine. And such suggestions appeared which are inadmis¬sible for any leadership of Ukraine. I mean entrance in Customs Union, in Organization of Treaty about Collective Security, idea of union of “Neftegas” and “Gasprom”. All these ideas of companies merger their Ukrainian top management, obviously, was ready to discuss on certain conditions to reach parity, but it didn’t happen. May one say about cooling of relations between Russia and Ukraine happening not on government level but on commercial level? I think in spite of we see collision of interest in economic sphere it can’t be said only about commerce. I think the basement of this – approach in whole of Russia to Ukraine which wants to keep Ukraine in sphere of influence. But this is inadmissible for any leadership of Ukraine. And I think that decision to show on Russian television, on first channel short film “Victor Almighty” was not made by leadership of channel. This justifies that it is not proper probably to consider only economic interests as reason of existing conflicts.

- In what measure can Yanukovich accept compromises in ideology and demands of the Western Ukraine which contradict to his pre-election promises, pre-election platform?

I think, if Yanukovich wants to be president of all Ukraine he must accept compromises. This is what Kravchuk and Kuchma did and which Yushchenko did insufficiently in relation of the Eastern Ukraine and got problems due to this. Appeals of experts to Yanukovich were to accept compro¬mises. But he made give-and-take to Russian party, and it was beyond compromises. These concessions – separation of special confession, Moscow patriarchate, are in detriment for other regions. This is what no one president of Ukraine did. This is appointment of Tabachnik as minister of education. There is opinion in Ukraine that this decision was lobbied from Moscow. This is why I wouldn’t say that Yanukovich didn’t accept compromises enough in country taking into account point of view not only of the Western Ukraine but of Centre of Ukraine. And main reason of Yanukovich rating lowering is in inability of Party of Regions at this moment to carry out popu¬list social-economic promises which it made too many in essentially negative campaign. Besides, general style in conduction of business in Ukraine meets interests of big business, Party of Regions, but doesn’t take into account contradictions with business which has no concern to Party of Regions, and first of all, of course, interests of small and medium business. This is a reason of great dissatisfaction in society. And meanwhile Yanukovich tries to adjust it for the account of concentration of power in his hands. I think this approach must give tactical victory but not in long-term perspective.

- Can the big joint projects in economic, innovative and other spheres become joining foundation in relations of Russia and Ukraine?

Such collaboration, I think, will be in interests of both parties. But such talks were going since 1991, and I didn’t see special successes. I think main reason is that for Russian party such bilateral cooperation is directed, first of all, for provision of Russian interests in economic and political sphere. This is why such cooperation is decelerated. I think normal cooperation is possible but the matter is that for Russian party any collaboration with Ukraine foresee getting serious political dividends and is accompanied by attempts to draw Ukraine into supranational unions which restrict sovereignty of Ukraine like Customs Union. Zone of free trade with Russia is pleased, it doesn’t contradict to zone of free trade with European Union. But when we are told go to Customs Union it contradicts to policy of Ukraine in a whole. Moreover, when Rus¬sian diplomats speak openly at round table in Kiev fellows why do you go to European Union, nobody is waiting you there, go to us – such point of view can tell expert with care because he is in another country. Russian experts who arrive to us make statements very often which we, Ukrainian experts in Moscow can’t allow ourselves. I made speech in Moscow on subject of relations between Russia and Ukraine I understood that I was in another country, that I could comment any things, but, obviously, taking into account that it was another country. Russian experts in Ukraine don’t have such feeling, they always go beyond limits such common rules, and it is more wonderful when Russian diplomats allow themselves such statements. Recently we had quite visible not perception of the Russian point of view when Russian diplomat allowed himself such statements at round table in institute by Gorshenin.

- Are the statements about territorial claims from Rumania appreciable threat for national security of Ukraine taking into account the low level of defence capacity of Ukraine?

Main threats for national security, I think, I wouldn’t be original while saying that if country wouldn’t be reformed, if modernization of country wouldn’t be carried out so such threats would be inside country. Not from mythical enemy, aggressive West, Islamic fundamentalism, but namely from absence of reforms and modernization. If one speaks about territorial claims we must discuss freely who allow himself territorial claims to Ukraine? This is just the Russian politicians. There are any expressions from the Hungarian politicians, the Rumanian politicians, but it is under level of the Russian claims that Sevastopol was and remains the Russian town and Russian navy fleet would stand there forever. Expressions in relation of Crimea, expressions about Ukraine as artificial formation. We can hear it on very high level from Russia. That is why I think in given case that Russian audience must not wonder why row of suggestions from Russia induce such vigilance in Ukraine. Because it is accompanied by such propagandistic statements in relation to Ukraine even including artificiality of Ukrainian statehood. When such theses are shown on main Russian television channels, one can understand that it indices great vigilance.

- How is important for Ukraine diversity of gas supplies and is it suitable for that gas pipeline “Nabukko” project?

Gas supplies diversity problem is actual for Ukraine, this problem is actual for any country, European Union strives for diversity, any country strives for diversity. So, of course, it is in interests of Ukraine to diversify gas supplies, moreover that Russia uses gas as instrument of economic and political pressure. Moreover it is directly indicated in Russian foreign political doctrine. That is obvious that we need diversity. But another problem is how diversity will be carried out because all presidents and prime ministers of Ukraine talk about it without concrete results. Let us see how will work oil pipeline “Odessa – Brody”, how it will be filled with Azerbaijanian or Caspian oil.

- What influence did have to Yanukovich and situation in Ukrainian society his abolish-ment of decree about conferment to Stepan Bandera hero status?

Yushchenko decree was quite contradictory itself. The matter is not in abolishment of decree about Bandera, because this decree is one of components of humanitarian policy of Yanukovich. There were moments in humanitarian policy of Yanukovich which were more disputable for country and undermined authority of Yanukovich as president of Ukraine than abolishment of decree about Bandera. I showed examples yet – preference of church of Moscow patriarchate, this is statement that Golodomor is not genocide, this is appointment of Tabachnik and whole row of other actions.

What had Yushchenko to do – to approve corresponding law in whole concerning Ukrainian Rebel Army. Most historians who are not politicized understand now absolutely that Ukrainian Rebel Army, though it was complicated time, but this was people who fought for independence of Ukraine in two fronts. This was what Yushchenko had to do in legal sphere. And decree on Shukhevich would be more justified in this case. Decree on Bandera was politicized obviously. Really it was big present for Yanukovich because it was adopted between first and second rounds of elections, and it set Timoshenko in the hot seat. Factually, Yushchenko played up to Yanukovich by that decree. Was it done whether specially or not but result was such. Yushchen¬ko acted here unreasonably. Yanukovich had “to shift” from this topic for the best in that situa¬tion as he was advised by experts. He had to say nor yes, nor no because it was done yet. It was conducted in spirit of such soviet practice of hero status conferment. Really both Shukhe¬vich and Bandera are written in history of Ukraine, there is contradictoriness in their estimation, but it is history of Ukraine yet. There wasn’t necessity to touch it. But as soon as Yushchenko did it Yanukovich had not to touch this topic for the best. The following became element of political technologies also because really abolishment of decree on Bandera – this is such present for radical movements of Western Ukraine. Extremes meet in this case. But I wouldn’t overesti¬mate value of this because I thought that Yanukovich might think about equilibrium of his huma¬nitarian policy in a whole in future. There is necessity to say and about such problem here. Yanu¬kovich doesn’t say now yet that Russian language must have status of second state language. This was what experts predicted. I think that nobody in Ukraine, no one president will not do that because it disrupts country. But now this dangerous draft law about languages continues to circu¬late which give Russian status of second state language in fact. But it is very complex and ticklish topic. But such problems, of course, disrupt country, and they, by the way, do not work for Yanukovich benefit.