Director of the Kiev Institute of Global Strategies Vadim Karasev believes that before Lukashenka and Yanukovich appeared before the same choice of either Russia or — Europe.
Ukrainian politicians discuss the application of the mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, who on the eve of his visit confirmed its previous position concerning Sevastopol — namely, the transfer ("return") of the city under the jurisdiction of Russia. For example, a public initiative "Upgrade of the country", headed by the former head of the SBU Valentin Nalyvaychenko, demanded that the government "does not turn a blind eye" to such statements. "Otherwise, this government will once again confirm its reputation of the colonial administration, which works against their own country and its citizens." — Said in a statement, "Upgrading the country."
This and other political events in the southern neighbor of Belarus, we are discussing with the Kiev political scientist and director of the Institute of Global Strategies Vadim Karasev.
Navumchyk: What kind of reaction you'd expect from the Ukrainian leadership to statements Luzhkov, who is known to be on friendly terms with Yanukovych?
Karasev Indeed, there is a warm personal relationship between Luzhkov and Yanukovych recently even Luzhkov was on the anniversary of the Ukrainian president here in Kiev. It may be a very accurate response MFA. And — everything. Why do not the authorities react to Luzhkov's statements? I think that the current Ukrainian authorities take into account the fact that Luzhkov's statements are designed for the Russian recipient. Luzhkov is seriously concerned that after Shaimiev and Rakhimov next "on the fly" from a cohort of regional heads of old-timers who started in the days of early eltsynizmu, he will. And Luzhkov such statements is trying to show that he is not just a regional politician who can grebvats and — policies nationwide, the all-Russian, radical, edgy, national-patriotic. And the Kremlin will have to take into account the possible response from the compulsion to Luzhkov's resignation. Moreover, that action Luzhkov on socio-economic development of Sevastopol by the budget of Moscow, Luzhkov is not only to find the all-Russian mission, which claims to be the leader of the "Russian world" on a par with Patriarch Kirill, but in the case of trying to find a new retirement amplyua — curator Crimean policy on the part of Russia.
Navumchyk: The presidency of Viktor Yanukovych celebrated six months. What are the preliminary results of its policies?
Karasev I think that those who expected that Yanukovych will be pro-Ukrainian — disappointed those who expected him to be pro-Russian — frustrated too. This means that it will have to be more specific. Or act as pro-Russian voters demand from the south and east of Ukraine, through which Yanukovych came to power — or to act almighty logic. But the activity in line with the logic of the state risk losing voters. It is no accident Yanukovych against the Constitution be restored to the model in 1996, when the president had large constitutional powers and the president was independent of partisan electoral moods and games from the elites. And then there is a problem for Ukraine or authoritarianism of independence (as, for example, in Belarus at this stage Belarusian history), or — in ezvrapeyski democracy and the standards of pluralism, democracy, competition — but in the latter case, there is no guarantee that Yanukovych wins elections in 2015 and parliamentary elections in 2012 to win the Party of Regions.
Thus, Yanukovych could preserve and present an intermediate position, if pro-Russian electorate awaits pro solutions, such as the approval of the Russian language as the second official. But then he runs the risk of losing another part of Ukraine. The current weak democracy, which so far dominated by pro-Russian electorate as "orange" in the crisis — it poses a dilemma Yanukovych. This — the first conceptual crisis of the current government, the intersection of which Yanukovych will be very difficult to get out. Paradoxically, the current is weak, immature democracy undermines the foundations of statehood and independence of Ukraine, in fact provokes a rapprochement with Russia and the Russian takeover of Ukraine. Interestingly, as the Kremlin will react to it. Perhaps he is interested that this level of democracy and preserved, as it is beneficial for Russia. After all, if authoritarianism — get another Lukashenko, but stronger, given the size of the country, resources, etc.
Navumchyk: I just wanted to clarify either the term "independence authoritarianism" as applied to Belarus. Using anti-Kremlin rhetoric, Lukashenko, however, does not stop rusyfikatsyynuyu policy. Belarus today without its historic character, the state of the Belarusian language worse than it has been for all time in the memory of the present generation, the value of the national authority questioned.
Karasev I agree, but in Ukraine, first of all, there is the factor of the Western Ukraine, which in Belarus. Second, sometimes the road to independence is through independence elites who want to keep their suverennasts. They want to privatize the state and the elites do not give it to another state. And then to turn on the logic of the next phase, when before that authoritarian elites, or independence for the elite, will need to attach the sovereignty of the people. It seems to me that before Lukashenko is a choice: either to Europe or in Russia, then he can not balance. He has already exhausted the potential of the "authoritarian independence." I think that in the Ukraine, he is exhausted. Therefore better way than to go to the European standards of democracy and security — not. Even with their personal thoughts: if a politician in Europe lost the election — it is not the end of his political career. Here, in the post-Soviet version, if you lose — there is a risk of losing everything.
Navumchyk: Will Yanukovych to do that with the 1994 series does Lukashenko — to destroy the germs of democracy, to stop the process of national healing?
Karasev You see, unlike the experience of Belarus, where Lukashenko came to power after a short period of independence, which was in 1991 — in the Ukraine before the arrival of Yanukovych's independence was already 19 years old. So it is very difficult to get here so devkrainizavats and Ukraine. It may be some attempts, but in society it is not sympathy. And this is the elite falls on deaf ears. And then, there are the Western Ukraine, is the spirit of the west Ukrainian — which was not in Belarus. Belarus still in 1994 remained basically the post-Soviet and post-Soviet Ukraine has ceased to be in 2004. So now there is an attempt to neasavetyzmu, a kind of mix of Donetsk regionalism with sovietisms — but this is all temporary. The democratic forces are in crisis, Europe — in crisis, Russia is on the rise. Typical conditions. But devkrainizavats Ukraine by model Lukashenko Yanukovych is likely to fail. Especially, in terms of charisma and national populism Yanukovych is far from Lukashenko. In addition, in 1994, Belarus was not privatization, there was a strong business. In Ukraine, there is a strong business,
there are entrepreneurs who are ready to fund the opposition, and to block all channels impossible. It is impossible to make the opposition was funded only by grants and thereby then accuse the opposition of funding from abroad.
Navumchyk: Both from the point of today's realities see the role of Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukrainian history?
Karasev Yushchenko was the right time in the right place. Without Yushchenko would not be Maidan in 2004 — Tymoshenko has never won an election, and then it would come in 2004, Yanukovych to power. And so it came later, and the country is another. Second, the President gives the feeling ukrainskastsi Ukraine. Not Soviet, not ethnographic, and that forms a mental codes of Ukrainians in the European context. Unfortunately, when Yushchenko elites were not willing to endure the course that he suggested, and he himself may not have enough power mechanisms. Nevertheless, he asked the European vector, democratic vector, given the opportunity to live in the country in terms of democratic pluralism, competition, independence of the media. People appreciate it — so try to limit Yanukovych's something in this area are perceived to protest and the government is forced to retreat. This period must wait. This is such a pause. By pressing the "pause" in the history of Ukraine. We have to wait until someone else will fit, something peragrupuetstsa. And it will be clear that something with which Yanukovych came to power — this situation and environment is rapidly disappearing. Turn Ukraine has not come back.