The 2004 poster reads "Yushchenko - the People's President." In Jan 18, 2010 Ukrainian presidential elections Mr. Yushchenko received only 6 percent of the vote.
On the one hand the stunning defeat of Viktor Yushchenko, and by extension of the whole Orange carnival, is a welcome event for Russia and for Ukraine as well. However, one shouldn't get too ecstatic because there is also a substantial potential danger ahead. The outgoing president leaves to his successor an economy in shambles, a devalued currency, a huge budget deficit and a national debt of over $33 billion. In addition, Yushchenko did all he could to divide the country's population along ethnic lines by suppressing the Russian language, building memorials and presenting national awards to Nazi collaborators and mass executioners.
In any event, whoever wins the elections on February 7 will deliver to Moscow both good and some bad news. The good news is that the new president will be more Russia-friendly, will stop talking about NATO membership, will consider extension of the lease of the Russian Black Sea Naval base at Sevastopol and will probably make a few other friendly gestures. The bad news is that none of the above is born out of deep and unselfish love for mother Russia; on the contrary, they come with an impressive price tag.
Is Moscow ready to pick up the tab? What if it does not? Is anyone around to bail out Ukraine except Russia? If one thinks of Washington, then forget it. Even in the height of Orange hysteria there was not too much cash flow to Kiev, except, of course, generous grants to Freedom House and many other U.S. organizations that received funds to support Yushchenko. Speaking of which, shouldn't Uncle Sam request the refund of this money now?
Presently, the United States is bogged down in its economic and health care reforms, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Iranian nuclear agenda. This means that Washington's attention is now occupied not only far away from Ukraine, but also away from the whole former Soviet space. With no U.S. lead, Europe might cough up something, but this would not be enough, and China will not try to play on this territory against Russia's interests, at least for now.
It looks like we are back to the same familiar game of who pays how much for what. In the old days of the Soviet Union, Moscow would pay whatever it took to expand the happy socialist camp, not only in Eastern Europe but in Africa, Latin America or anywhere else. The welfare of the Soviet people was the last priority for the Kremlin as long as communist ideas were taking over the masses. Today's capitalist Russia counts its money, however, and whatever skeptics say about the strength or weakness of civil society here, Moscow cannot afford to pay for geopolitics and leave its own people in the cold.
Therefore one should expect a huge bargaining game between Kiev and Moscow, and who will end up as the biggest winner remains to be seen. For now, though, one thing is for sure: only five percent of Ukrainians voted for the so-called hero of the Orange Revolution, and that speaks for itself. It also proves that any attempt to divide the Russian and Ukrainian people despite their strong historical, family and cultural ties is doomed to failure.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Leave a comment