From left to right: Yushchenko, Timoshenko, and Yanukovych
Five years have gone by as one day. Only yesterday, it seems, we saw jubilant crowds in Kiev celebrating the victory of democracy in Ukraine. Small wonder, too -- the pro-Western Victor Yushchenko had contrived to wrest victory from his hateful namesake, pro-Russia Yanukovich. The former, cruelly poisoned (allegedly by none other than Putin), had miraculously risen from the dead, won the election and was about to guide Ukraine to a life of plenty in the European Union and NATO. The unimpeachable teaching of George Bush about the inevitable spread of democracy across the world had yet again been proved right. Besides, no less importantly, the Orange Revolution turned out to be relatively inexpensive to fund. Especially compared to the business of promoting democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, where thousands of young Americans and Europeans from NATO countries continue to die and hundreds of billions of dollars continue to be spent.
According to Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, in Ukraine the price barely came to several dozen million dollars. However, as he lacked precise statistics, the actual sum could have been considerably larger. The congressman called on the White House Administration and the US General Accounting Office to look into the Ukrainian election's cost to the American taxpayer, and what exactly that money had paid for, yet his appeals fell on deaf ears. That so greatly incensed Ron Paul that he accused the US Government of hypocrisy. On the one hand, said the congressman, we are against external interference in another state's election, but on the other we send money to Ukraine to sway the vote there.
It does not take a profoundly analytical mind to see that the main object of the Orange Revolution strategists was not democracy in Ukraine, but further weakening of Russia. In the contest between two schools of American political thought, one of which called for integration with Russia and the other, for its isolation and weakening, it was the latter that was confidently winning.
The views of those who warned that attempts to sever Ukraine from Russia would ultimately miscarry were blatantly ignored. The reasoning of those who pointed out that the historical, cultural and family ties between the two countries were much too strong and that the current policy, if continued, might end in civil war in Ukraine and the country's breakup was likewise rejected out of hand.
As the Russian saying goes, it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. The United States, as the principal sponsor of the Orange Revolution, has found itself in a predicament. Its status of the only remaining superpower after the fall of communism failed the test of time. The economic crisis, the astronomical national debt and growing unemployment, as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, instability in Pakistan, Iran's nuclear ambition, and the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism are inducing the new Washington Administration to take stock of its resources and opt for a more pragmatic policy.
So now it is the advocates of rapprochement with Russia for jointly tackling global problems that are beginning to prevail over those who would like to see Russia further weakened through NATO enlargement, the BMD system in Eastern Europe, funding color revolutions, and, most importantly, trying to break up Ukraine from Russia.
On January 17, 2010 the world will witness the inevitable defeat of Yushchenko, whose legacy, apart from a record economic slump and the hryvna devalued by 50 percent, will include monuments to Nazi collaborators and organizers of mass executions of Jews and Poles.
Let me say that those who feel like gloating over the difficulties America is experiencing fail to understand that many of U.S. problems are shared by the rest of the world. Therefore, it is in Russia's interests to take a dignified high road policy and to seek and find ways of helping America in solving them. The present moment is singularly auspicious for implementing real projects in the course of much hyped resetting, which, alas, cannot yet boast any tangible results. It is well known that in the wake of the Obama-Medvedev meeting, an impressive number of 18 (!) bilateral governmental commissions have been set up to coordinate the resetting process. So far we did not hear too much about their activities or, most importantly, results, except perhaps just one, on cultural cooperation, headed by Mikhail Shvydkoi and US Undersecretary of State Judith McHale. Apparently, the other seventeen are still trying to decide what they are going to do. Don't you think it's about time you set to, gentlemen?
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Leave a comment