A DEFICIT OF LEGITIMACY

Russia's annexation of Crimea and the disturbances in south-east Ukraine have once again given actuality to a possible resumption of the "Cold War". At the same time, Ukraine is accusing Moscow of destabilizing the situation, whereas Moscow rejects these charges and is urging Kiev to reach agreement with the country's Russian-speaking population. Although the talks between the US, the EU, Russia and Ukraine in Geneva did end with the signing of an agreement on a normalization of the situation, there has been no real progress towards fulfilling the articles of the agreement. How might events develop and what could be the future consequences of the Ukrainian crisis for Ukraine itself, for the region and the system of international relations? The well-known historian and social commentator, Nikolay Zlobin, who lives in Washington, has shared his thoughts on the situation with R+.

- Despite the agreement signed in Geneva, the situation in Ukraine continues to be extremely tense. Why are the accords not working?

- A substantial part of the Geneva agreement on Ukraine is rather shallow and reminds one of the agreement signed in Kiev on 25 February which was endorsed by the European ministers. As you know, that agreement wasn't fulfilled. As far as the Geneva agreement is concerned, it prescribes no specific mechanisms or timetables for the fulfilment of conditions. All this shows is that this agreement is a meaningless sheet of paper. From the point of view of political significance, the agreement in Geneva did to some extent reflect one important factor - everything regarding a settlement to the situation in Ukraine must be resolved within the context of a dialogue between Russia and the US, although Moscow and Washington are pointing out that, first and foremost, the Ukrainians must come to an agreement between themselves. During the meetings in Geneva the opinion about a need for a dialogue between Moscow and Washington was expressed for the first time since the events in Ukraine began. The US is now taking a fairly tough stance in relation to Russia. But again, the US' position, although politically tough, is generally hollow. The American administration simply doesn't know what to do in this instance. And this is disconcerting to Moscow which is unable to guess the US' next moves. Washington is usually predictable. There are debates in Congress, the House of Representatives, the American press and the political elite, and from these it is possible to determine which way Washington policy will go. We don't have this factor now, and the US could do something rather unexpected. Such uncertainty is having a sobering effect on Moscow, because potentially the US could do nothing or, on the other hand, it could react in an extremely tough manner. We now have a rather stalemate situation. Besides, all four sides taking part in the negotiations interpret this agreement in different ways. The only positive factor about this agreement is the decision to send European observers to Ukraine. So we now have the chance to get more or less objective information from Ukraine. But still, one should not pin any great hopes on the Geneva agreement.

- In other words, the US has no specific mechanisms of influence on the events in Ukraine?

- It is already clear that the US, and then Europe, will fundamentally change their policy towards Russia. And this process will take several years. There is a somewhat disdainful, "gung-ho" attitude in Russia right now. They don't quite understand that the US, like an ice-breaker, edges forward very slowly. The US is now reviewing the policy it has had towards Russia over the last few years. Washington believes that this policy has not fully paid off. The Americans have to acknowledge that Russia is not an ally and a friendly country and it is impossible to find common ground with them. To a certain extent there will be a return to the policy of containment. American policy is already moving in that direction. Russia will not take part in the "G8" and Russia's participation in a number of other international meetings will also be barred or substantially restricted. This trend will continue for some years. The Americans are now shocked and sorely disappointed with Russia. And they are pondering the reasons for this error of judgement. The problem is that the American administration, in trying to find mechanisms of influence on the events in Ukraine, decided to go back, in some new form, to the policy of containment, i.e. to the times of the "Cold War". There is nothing new here. The US just hasn't been able to overcome its stereotypes and see Russia not for what it is but how they would like to see it. In other words, its attitude to Russia has been towards a country which suffered a global defeat in the "Cold War" and therefore needs recommendations and hints from the victor on ways of development. This may have been the case in the 1990s, but this attitude to Russia now is unproductive, because it was not Russia, but the USSR that lost the "Cold War". The moment people start saying that Russia should be accepted for what it is and start doing business with it, then immediately Washington starts a debate about corruption, human rights violations and a bloody regime. The US' position cannot be called a policy; it is an imitation of a policy.   

- What will Europe do as regards Russia?

- Over the past month Europe and the US have realized how inter-dependent and interwoven economic relations between the Europeans and Russia are. Before that the US and the EU didn't understand this. Today the question is whether the Americans will be able to make up for the Europeans' alienation from Russia and how long this will take. Specifically, the question of a new Marshall Plan for Europe is being decided. This is being handicapped somewhat by the fact that the US' economy is not in the best of health, but Europe's alienation from Russia is being discussed. Another subject is security. The West is categorically against including Russia and the post-Soviet space in its sphere of security provision. The EU and the US now intend to reconsider global European security and to draw a border of security up to Russia's borders. This will lead to even greater European dependence on the US - as in the "Cold War" years, the Europeans will need America's "umbrella of security" and they will have to spend more on the military budget. The events in Ukraine have shown the collapse of the whole system of international organizations. Neither the UN nor the OSCE has been able to "handle" the situation in Ukraine. And because of this there is increasing interest in the restoration of NATO, not as a military, but a military-political organization. Europe will clearly remain in the US' zone of control.

- The Ukrainian authorities have announced the start of an anti-terrorist operation in the south-east of the country to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity. But nothing is happening and there has been no sign of the Ukrainian army as such…

- By all accounts, Ukraine doesn't have an army. There are not even any special units capable of fulfilling a local operation. In fact, there is no need for any large-scale operations in Ukraine at the moment. What are needed there are professional mobile military units. The whole problem is that Kiev has a large deficit of legitimacy among its armed forces and special services. They cannot prove their legitimacy and be confident that their decisions will be fulfilled. There are occasions when the Kiev authorities demonstrate political weakness, which to a certain extent is again linked with an absence of legitimacy. They have no complete control over the situation. At times one gets the impression that the authorities are deliberately setting up the eastern regions to provoke Russia into taking actions that would ultimately turn Russia into a pariah. Why did the people who came to power in Kiev not occupy the eastern regions, go there and meet with the population and explain their position and build an army? Instead, they went back to an agreement on partnership with the EU. The presidential elections in May are the only salvation for the present Ukrainian authorities. But their conscience will not allow them to unleash a civil war. The situation in Ukraine's southern and eastern regions hinges on Russia's position. Again, one hopes that Russia will create the opportunity for elections to be held in Ukraine.

- In a situation where the power structures are demoralized, could the pro-Russian wave in the Ukrainian regions reach as far as Kiev?

- I don't think it will reach Kiev. Even in the eastern and south-eastern regions there is no massive support for Russia. You have to remember, there are millions of people there and thousands of people in Donetsk, Luhansk and other cities are demonstrating. Many Ukrainians in these regions, however well disposed they may be towards Moscow, are aggrieved by the situation in Crimea. As one well-known Ukrainian politician explained to me, the Ukrainians don't understand what Russia is doing. After all, the Ukrainians didn't take, didn't seize Crimea from Russia and they didn't fight Russia for Crimea. Russia itself handed over Crimea in 1954 and again in 1992. Now, Russia has taken this gift back and continues to humiliate the Ukrainians. This feeling of hurt is also prevalent in the eastern regions. In fact, there is no massive support for Russia in the south and the south-east. The separatist leaders in these regions are aware of this. Kiev needs to make an attractive proposal to the population of these regions, otherwise Moscow will.  But it does not suit Putin to include Donbass and other regions in Russia because he would be shooting himself in the foot, politically speaking. For the moment, most of the population in the Ukrainian regions are not taking to the streets. So I do not think that the pro-Russian wave will go father than the eastern and south-eastern regions. If elections can be held next month the country will receive a legitimate government, otherwise Ukraine will be in a very dangerous situation. A split in the country is to no one's advantage. Ukraine must not be allowed to become a proving ground where different scenarios of a split in the state are tested. The danger is that such a scenario could be transferred to other states. At the moment, power in Ukraine is, as it were, in limbo. Nobody has been able to sort it out for six months. Even if elections are held in a part of Ukraine the situation will become clearer. A legitimate power will be able to ascertain what the regions not taking part in the ballot are unhappy about, have a dialogue with them, and so on. But after the elections the situation will get worse because with a legitimate power the opportunities of the armed groups in Ukraine and the forces from outside will be heavily restricted.

- Could Russia win loyalty from Ukraine by putting pressure over the question of gas supplies?

- It is possible that the Ukrainian authorities will be somewhat amenable but the Ukrainian people would suffer from a suspension of supplies. For all its talk about the fraternal Ukrainian people Russia has more than once switched off its gas supplies. You can fight the Ukrainian authorities, but it would be a big mistake to fight the Ukrainian people. Gas pressure will only anger the Ukrainians. Russia's main business is exporting gas. And here the reputation of a reliable partner and supplier is very important. But it is very easy to lose a reputation. Obviously, Ukraine has to pay for its gas, but it shouldn't pester the life out of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine doesn't have the money at the moment. Here, it would be best to find another solution. A reimbursement of the debt for gas will, as they say, not count for much for Russia, but a suspension of supplies would mean that the Ukrainians will be even more sceptical towards Russia.